Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:59:18 08/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2005 at 17:43:44, Marc Lacrosse wrote: >On August 16, 2005 at 17:16:33, Paolo Casaschi wrote: > >>>I know that usually when program improve they improve in all time controls. >>>I do not know of evaluation changes or search changes that make programs weaker >>>at blitz but stronger at long time control. >>> >>>In thoery it can happen but I need to see a proof for it and I believe that >>>fabien mainly test in blitz time control(he can correct me if I am wrong) >>>because usually productive changes in blitz of adding knowledge to the >>>evaluation are also productive at long time control. >> >>Do you have any proof or evidence that there is some correlation between blitz >>strenght and slower speed strenght? >>If you dont, then we can only compare assumptions and I tend to agree with Bob >>Hyatt since the same non-correlation is evident with humans and because common >>sense... >> >>--Paolo > >Paolo : just have a look at >http://volker-pittlik.name/wbforum/viewtopic.php?t=2849 >This no proof but maybe close to some kind of evidence. > >Sure there is no perfect correlation between blitz-strength and slow-rate >strength. but a kind of correlation is still completely evident. >Grossly the same engines who are on top in blitz rating lists tend to be the >same who perform well at a slower pace. >Do you have any example of a pair of engines with one rated 100 points higher >than the other at blitz and with the second rated 100 points higher than the >first at slow-rate ? >I do not know any such example ... > >Marc With Crafty right now, we might could show that. It is very possible that the blitz parallel search is 1/6 the speed of the standard time control parallel search. That is more than two doublings... which is at least a 100 rating points worse at blitz than at normal time controls... I had thought that the blitz event was later in the week, and had really not thought about it until I got a quick email from Peter asking whether he should turn the parallel search off, or use less than 8 cpus, because it appeared to be not performing very well. And he came to that conclusion without my saying anything about poor blitz performance, which means he was probably quite correct. Last year I didn't have things tuned so critically, because we didn't have the dual-core issues I had to deal with this year... So we were not a lot worse at blitz than at normal, but this year if I were playing blitz seriously, I would definitely have the search tuned differently...
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.