Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:33:04 01/12/06
Go up one level in this thread
>>>>>>Noomen-RybkaB9Neutral-Fruit22 2006
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1 Rybka 1.01 Beta 9 32-bit 2900 +6 +34/-21/=25 58.13% 46.5/80
>>>>>>2 Fruit 2.2 2850 -6 +21/-34/=25 41.88% 33.5/80
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The GUI said Rybka performed 56 Elo over Fruit 2.2 using the Neutral settings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Noomen-RybkaB9Optimistic-Fruit22 2006
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1 Rybka 1.01 Beta 9 32-bit 2900 +52 +36/-13/=31 64.38% 51.5/80
>>>>>>2 Fruit 2.2 2850 -52 +13/-36/=31 35.63% 28.5/80
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here the GUI said Rybka performed 102 Elo over Fruit 2.2 using the Optimistic
>>>>>>settings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In order to gather more data I'll run a shorter Nunn2 match (only 40 games)
>>>>>>against Gambit Fruit 4bx, which had been the first Beta's toughest opponent in
>>>>>>the Nunn2 set aside from Fruit 2.2 in my testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The rating of 2850 for Fruit was taken from the latest SSDF list, and Rybka's
>>>>>>2900 was chosen arbitrarily.
>>>>It is also possible that optimistic is simply better against weaker players when
>>>>neutral is better against stronger players or players of the same strength.
>>>>
>>>>The way to test it is to give fruit more time(in case of ponder off) or better
>>>>hardware in case of ponder on) and to test both optimistic and neutral.
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>Another possibility (which we will test with Beta 10) is that optimistic is
>>>better in better positions. I will try an "adaptive" approach, where if the
>>>previous iteration gave a score above a section threshold, an optimistic setting
>>>is used.
>>>
>>>Vas
>>
>>
>>Maybe, maybe not. Note that in the above results, Optimistic only won two more
>>games than Neutral. The biggest difference is that it lost far fewer.
>>
>> Albert
>
>Indeed, maybe I will look at that when all the data is ready.
>
>The adaptive approach is something which makes some sense to me. It will work if
>it's true that in better positions, you are more likely to find a move which
>becomes stronger with a deeper search.
>
>Yes, it's a mouthful - I hope it makes sense :)
>
>Vas
I understood fine, but after a little thought, taking into consideration the
above results, I am not sure the logic follows. The idea as I understand it, is
to basically be more attentive to one's own winning possibilities when winning,
and the opponent's when worse. At first view this seems entirely logical, but is
it? Looking for one's own 'winning' possibilities really means moves that appear
to possibly improve one's position substantially. How much is that threshold?
What if what is happening above (fewer losses) isn't so much that it found
winning moves for the opponent and sidestepped them, but that it found ways to
improve its position, even when worse, that the Neutral setting missed? Perhaps
its best defense isn't greater paranoia towards the opponent's chances, but
simply its superior evaluation.
Albert
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.