Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:28:03 12/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2003 at 13:19:02, Daniel Clausen wrote:
>On December 17, 2003 at 13:17:01, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On December 17, 2003 at 12:55:34, Matthew Hull wrote:
>>
>>>On December 17, 2003 at 12:50:39, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 17, 2003 at 12:38:45, Daniel Clausen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On December 17, 2003 at 09:35:16, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>>And, as I suggested previously, if, after a program leaves book, it is
>>>>>>in an obviously won or lost position, the game gets aborted and the next
>>>>>>one started. There is no place for "book kills" when the goal is a time
>>>>>>handicap match.
>>>>>
>>>>>In order to reduce threads like 'this opening position is lost! no it's not! yes
>>>>>it is! it's lost when you use bitboards! but fisher would win this position vs
>>>>>DB!' it would be good to 'formalize' won/lost positions after the opening.
>>>>>
>>>>>You could declare an opening won/lost if one of the engines evaluates its first
>>>>>move out of book with a score outside a predefined score-window [X, Y]. ([-0.5,
>>>>>+0.5] could be an example) Some points:
>>>>>
>>>>>- I intentionally used two variables so it's possible to have an assymetric
>>>>>window (no clue whether that could be helpful or not)
>>>>>- You don't capture positions where a human being with comp-chess knowledge
>>>>>knows, that one engine _will_ lose but the scores of the engines won't catch it
>>>>>- the scores for this score-window have to be adjusted (+1 should mean approx 1
>>>>>pawn advantage)
>>>>>- everything else I forgot :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Ideas? Comments? Shrieking epitaphs?
>>>>>
>>>>>Sargon
>>>>>
>>>>>PS. It's funny - we often claim that "{small number} games are not enough!" but
>>>>>now we still make this experiment ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It depends on what you want to prove.
>>>>
>>>>If you want to show exactly how much better one program is than another, then
>>>>the more games, the merrier. But if you simply want to show that a handicap
>>>>is significant, a few games can do that, assuming that they don't all end in
>>>>draws.
>>>>
>>>>For example, in the current Rebel vs Crafty odds match, I think it pretty
>>>>clear that the time handicap is _very_ significant. 4 wins vs 1 loss and
>>>>2 draws is pretty convincing, since the games are slow time control to start
>>>>with. The question really isn't "how much better is the handicapped side"
>>>>but "is the handicapped side better?"
>>>>
>>>>Speed is not everything, but it is very important.
>>>
>>>
>>>And it also answers the original question of "Are there any North American
>>>projects that would be competitive at a WCCC?"
>>>
>>>That's how this whole thing started. :)
>>
>>
>>That was _really_ never a valid question. That could have been demonstrated
>>on ICC at any point in time. There are _several_ US programs that play quite
>>well...
>>
>>Of course there is always the "if they thought they had any chance to win,
>>they would have come" sort of nonsense. In addition to the lack of holding
>>the events around the world, of course.
>
>Next time I will skip the PS at the end of my posts so you guys discuss about
>the main part in my posts. :p
>
>Sargon
I had already addressed your main question, I hope. IE I had not defined
the N for +/-N that one side has to evaluate before the book line is labeled
"too bad" or "too good". When I run these tests, I look at the position. If
one side is considerably negative, but the position looks reasonable (this can
happen if one side has castled and the other can not for a few moves, but
it can't be prevented) then I let the game go, knowing that the score will
balance out when both sides have castled. But if one side has no king-side
pawns, and the other side has pieces all around, I usually cull those. :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.