Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:15:58 05/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2004 at 15:12:01, Russell Reagan wrote: >On May 25, 2004 at 14:33:31, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>I doubt that very much. There are some engines that vary in strength with time >>control, but it is generally at the blitz level where these transitions take >>place. An engine that scores 30% at G/40 will probably score 30% at G/120 and >>at 40/2 against the same opponent. > > >I'll test it. What engines would you like me to use? > > >>I suspect that you saw it happen once or twice and are now extrapolating the >>result in your mind. > > >Yes, maybe. I need to test the idea some more. > > >>If the effect were profound, wouldn't Crafty score 50% against Shredder in the >>SSDF? > > >I don't understand the reasoning here. The effect may only be subtle. I don't >even know if it is testable in practical time. > > >>The reason an engine might pick up strength at longer time controls is that it >>has a better fundamental algorithm, but it is poorly microoptimized. > > >What about diminishing returns? If we plotted the results of matches with >respect to time (ex. 30%, 35%, 38%, etc.), what do the curves look like? At the >beginning of the curve, the slow program with a superior algorithm won't fit the >overall pattern, but I'm after the overall shape of the curve, where it levels >off (or if it levels off), and things like that. Why will one program have diminishing returns and not the other? There is no conclusive evidence that diminishing returns occur. Citations" "Dark Thought Goes Deep" "Crafty Goes Deep" >>A great painter paints a picture in a month. The same painter paints a picture >>in ten minutes. I am guessing that the slower time of painting made a much >>better picture. >> >>When I play a chess engine contest, I want the result to be art, not comedy. >>For me (though not for the majority) high speed blitz games are a crime against >>humanity. >> >>It is not the end point (who won?) that is interesting to me. It is the journey >>along the way. > > >This is where we differ somewhat. I am not uninterested in the quality of the >games, but I am more interested in the outcome of the match and finding out who >is better. A G/30 match might be of lower quality, but in general it will >probably produce the same winner as a G/120 match, don't you think? What you will see is how strong the program is on that hardware at G/30. Chances are good that there is a correlation to how the program does on that hardware ag G/120. >I am thinking about this from the point of view of an engine developer. If I can >reliably tell which engine is stronger in 1/10th of the time, without having to >play G/120 matches for weeks, then that will benefit me greatly in finding out >whether changes to the engine are improvements, and the engine will improve more >quickly. The higher the speed of the games, the greater the amount of randomness if the pace is very fast. At some point, I think it levels out. In a contest, I will spend a lot of time generating data. I would like the data to be valuable to me. >In that respect, I think longer games tell us less about which engine is better, >and about whether a change was really an improvement. I may be wrong though. It >is just an idea. I think that there is probably some happy medium for experimental quality (IOW, to collect the most reliable data in the least amount of time). But it probably varies quite a bit from program to program and from machine to machine, etc. When I generate a chess contest, I want the data to be interesting enough for me to read. Who wins the contest is purely an afterthought for me.
This page took 0.01 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.