Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 11:44:54 12/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. :)
don't you have enough threads to complain about the [I|E]cga without hijacking
this one? ;)
anthony
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.