Author: Don Dailey
Date: 10:33:42 01/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 1999 at 17:52:25, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On January 26, 1999 at 16:25:17, KarinsDad wrote: > >>I'm glad that you are running other programs against the control. At what times >>are you running the programs, on what type and speed processors, and what is >>your matching criteria? > >One minute per move, you choose the processor, and a match is scored if you'd >play the move at the end of the minute. > >I am flexible about the processor because I didn't want to split hairs over >whether a P5/133 is X% slower than a P6/200 or whatever. I figured that a few >people might run this on Crafty uing different hardware, and that might make >show us what effect this had on match rate. > >This is a little too multivariate to make a good controlled experiment, but >people will have reservations, possibly the same people, no matter what attempts >are made to control the experiment better. I don't think it is possible to >control it perfectly, so if you try to do so, people will point out the flaws >anyway. > >bruce Yes, I agree with you completely as well as your last post. The only think I would point out is that we need to run the Crafty version at the same level and use the same "matching" criteria. What are we considering a match? I proposed 2 ply and beyond at one point, Bob says he took 3 minutes to 10 minutes and one of the testers posted results that says he calls it a match only if his program wants to play the move at the end of the 1 minute. What criteria did you use? You last post hits the nail on the head, we compare match rates against Crafty (under the same testing conditions) and compare. But let's make sure we are using the same testing conditions. - Don
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.