Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:46:09 05/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2004 at 12:23:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 26, 2004 at 05:16:05, José Carlos wrote: > >>On May 25, 2004 at 20:15:58, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>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. >> >> >> This is an interesting point. I had never thought at it that way. So basically >>you say "faster implies more data and more randomness, and that probably levels >>out at some point". So an interesting experiment would be: try 1000 games at G1, >>100 games at G30 and 10 games at G120. The % of w/d/l should somehow be similar. >>Of course the numbers should be calculated in a more elaborated way, I just made >>them up, but that's the idea. Do you know how to do the calculations (my >>mathematical background is not enough)? >> Or we could do the other way, this is, run 1000 games at G1. Then start a >>match at G30 (with at least n games) until results are similiar in % to the >>first match. Then do the same with G120. >> What do you think? >> >> José C. > >I think the idea is flawed. > >Suppose you play two programs and limit them so they can only search to a depth >of 1 ply. It becomes "static evaluation vs static evaluation". If A has a >better evaluation, A wins. > >Suppose you now search for a long time, but A uses minimax (Just for a gross but >impractical example) and B uses alpha/beta. B will probably win on tactics. >Short games favor good evaluation over tactics. Longer games can give a program >a tactical edge over a smarter program... > >I am _certain_ that Crafty plays worse against the same program at blitz, as >opposed to playing the program in standard time controls. From looking at >literally thousands of logs from ICC... Crafty against which program? Is not the answer dependent on the name of the opponent program? Uri
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.