Author: Pallav Nawani
Date: 08:50:22 07/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
>On July 17, 2005 at 08:04:08, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On July 17, 2005 at 07:04:21, Pallav Nawani wrote: >>On July 17, 2005 at 05:22:47, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >One example: > >Shredder books have been made for long time controls. I mean the selection of >the moves has been made for that, so the book would be less good on blitz >games. This is very interesting. However, since CEGT is not using the shredder book, this is not a problem for them, although this is certainly a factor in the SSDF ratings :) >>For _rating_ (Mind you, _ratings_) Any time control is good enough >>as long as it is not so small that programs lose on time. >Quality is import as well as quantity. It depends how the tests are made. For you, I can see how quality is important, since you will be looking at shredder games to find ways to improve. A GM may look at SSDF games and decide which program to buy etc. But to answer the question: Which engine is the strongest on its own, quantity is necessary while quality is not as important. > >>SSDF do >>have a good number of games, of course, but just not enough to differentiate >>between two programs that are very close in strength. > >If afer 1000 games 2 programs are very close, do you really think that after >10000 they will not be the same and or if there is a difference of 2-10 points >would that make a difference for a user? After 1000 games the chance is very low, I personally consider the performance after 1000 games to be a good indicator of the engine strength. But for instance Junior 9 has 441 games in SSDF, and its error bars are big enough that there can be some up and down movement. Most engines in SSDF don't have 1000 games yet. > >>>5. Ponder on and learning are activated. >>For rating purposes, ponder on is irrelevant, since pondering is effectively >>nothing more than giving more time to a engine. >I do not agree. >If one engine is better to guess the opponent reply can play better and reach >higher depths. You are handicapping some engines by removing this option. On second thoughts, you are right here, although I still doubt this is going to affect the outcome much. All engines ponder in the same way (Though I don't know what shredder is doing, I doubt whether an engine can make a better ponder move guess than the analysis it has already made). Best Regards, Pallav
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.