Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Thanks for telling me its strength is not positional!

Author: Marc Lacrosse

Date: 23:07:06 01/14/06

Go up one level in this thread


>
>Lacrosse's analysis showed above all that in the 87 positions he tested, that
>Shredder 9 and Rybka scored 57% given 10 seconds, and Fruit and Toga and company
>are much weaker with so little time, and thus much weaker in blitz.

>
>                                       Albert

Just a little point, Albert.

What my little experience shows is not an argument for telling that engine A is
better or worse than engine B at faster or slower time control.

What I precisely did is the following :
let say :
- engine A solves "x" positions in 180 seconds and
- engine B solves "y" positions in 18o seconds.
I recorded:
- what percentage of "x" engine A had already solved after 10 seconds
- what percentage of "y" engine B had already solved after 10 seconds

So each engine is compared at 10 seconds with the number of positions that it
will solve _itself_ at 180 seconds

So when I record that Rybka has a 57% score and Fruit a 39%, this does _not_ say
that Rybka is "stronger" or "weaker" than Fruit, and we could have a much weaker
1800 elo engine getting a 80% (or a 15%) score in the same test.

What the little test tends to show is just that rybka has already shown 57% of
its own analysis capacity at 10 seconds whereas Fruit has a larger margin of
improvement (compared with itself) when given a larger time control.

Marc



This page took 0.01 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.