Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:49:14 06/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2004 at 16:10:14, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On June 29, 2004 at 15:53:26, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 29, 2004 at 15:34:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On June 29, 2004 at 13:51:51, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On June 29, 2004 at 13:13:19, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 29, 2004 at 12:34:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 28, 2004 at 18:16:39, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 28, 2004 at 16:44:33, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On June 28, 2004 at 12:37:42, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On June 28, 2004 at 08:54:00, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>settings, and then N games with the new settings. I am only really interested >>>>>>>>>>in longer timecontrols: 20 min + on an Athlon 2.0G or so (70 min on P-650, etc), >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Why long time controls? I thought you could test evaluation with shorter time >>>>>>>>>controls, search needed longer (or varied) time controls. Am I out in left >>>>>>>>>field? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Dan H. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Do you believe the commercial authors at home only test at 1 0 level? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, but their situation is different than mine. They have mature engines with >>>>>>>evaluation values that are somewhere near right. I've got a green engine with >>>>>>>evaluation values that are junk. I'm looking at short time control tests to get >>>>>>>me headed in the right direction. Got to walk before you run. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Dan H. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why do you suggest it works for crafty to play 1 0? >>>>> >>>>>I never mentioned crafty. But same as the commercials - it's evaluation values >>>>>are a lot more refined than mine. >>>>> >>>>>What do you recommend for someone like me starting from scratch? Will short >>>>>time control testing better my evaluation or do you think it's a waste of time? >>>>> >>>>>Dan H. >>>> >>>>I think that short time control testing is good for everybody. >>>> >>>>The question of Vincent was: >>>> >>>>"Do you believe the commercial authors at home only test at 1 0 level?" >>>> >>>>My answer is that I do not believe that they only test at 1 0 level but I also >>>>do not believe that they do not use 1 0 level as part of their testings. >>> >>>Why do you not believe that they do not use 1 0 time control as part of their >>>testing? >> >>because I think that testing at 1 0 can reveal some information very fast(for >>example if there is a bug and the program can crash because of some change) >> >>I also think that watching fast games can also help to detect if the program has >>bugs in the evaluation because you can look not only in the moves but also in >>the evaluation. >> >> >>Uri > >Why do you think that the commercial authors will use 1 0 testing if the only >convincing argument is that you feel that it might be useful because they can >look in the evaluation which they cannot do at say 2 0 ? > >What is your argument why 1 0 is more useful than 2 0? 1 0 and 2 0 are the same principle so it is not very important if they use 1 0 games or 2 0 games. It is also possible that they do not use 1 0 games but 55 seconds per side time control. 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.