Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:30:30 05/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2004 at 13:46:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 26, 2004 at 12:46:09, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 > > >Not particularly. But in general I am talking about commercial programs. You >could look at some stats on ICC for example. It simply seems to play better at >longer time controls... I cannot use search command because I am not member of ICC so I only looked at rating. I see that you have 3241 at bullet 2929 at blitz and 2637 at standard. Bullet 3241 [8] 6675 1468 1088 9231 3286 (27-Dec-2002) Blitz 2929 59626 17733 14094 91453 3388 (09-Jun-2000) Standard 2637 5281 2747 2442 10470 2792 (25-Oct-2000) For comparison DeepFritz Bullet 2958 [8] 40 2 5 47 3003 (02-Jan-2002) Blitz 3038 [8] 68 11 10 89 3038 (25-Aug-2002) Standard 2746 [6] 74 15 20 109 2801 (27-Jan-2001) Rebel12 Bullet 2190 [8] 1 0 1 2 Blitz 2774 3467 2416 1849 7732 3018 (26-Apr-2004) Standard 2551 169 190 133 492 2677 (27-Aug-2003) I do not see a tendency to do better at longer time control relative to the commercial based on that data. 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.