Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: comparison Blitz and longer time control

Author: Heinz van Kempen

Date: 13:47:53 01/17/06

Go up one level in this thread


On January 17, 2006 at 15:18:00, Dann Corbit wrote:

>On January 17, 2006 at 15:11:24, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote:
>
>>I find it difficult to empircally demonstrate that programs differ in their
>>relative ranking, depending on time (not including time controls below 4 minutes
>>mind you, where wierd stuff does happen). Ponder is kind of like increasing time
>>to think.
>>
>> For example, the cegt blitz  ratings correlate .99 with the CEGT longer time
>>controls.
>>
>>I would love to see evidence of changes in rank due to differences is ponder or
>>time.
>>
>>maybe hiarcs 10 hyper modern is a candidate for being better at blitz. e.g.,
>>check out its standard rating
>>(http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/cegtrating4040all.html)
>>
>> versus its blitz rating (http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/eloblitzall.html)
>>
>>Fruit, in contrast, may be a little weaker in blitz.
>
>Ktulu 75 seems to prosper at 40/120 in my tests.
>Glaurung 1.01 seems to prosper at blitz in my tests.

Hi Dann, Joseph and all,

there seem to be exceptions from this comparisons. Many testers claim that
especially Gandalf and Junior will gain from more time and I am just seeing that
Zappa and Crafty Cito profit considerably from more time (or two CPU´s) and
there are good Blitz engines, too.

About ponder on tournaments: We could run them in CEGT, but tester´s opinion so
far is that this would be waste of CPU time (because there is only a certain
percentage of ponder hits) and so it would be more or less the same to give more
time for all instead.

Currently I do not think it would be a good idea to adapt the benchmark to
faster hardware. The reasons are that this would be demanded too much from those
testers using slower machines and it would also give fewer games for each
engine. Results would not have the same statistical value and less amateur
engines would be tested. In my opinion CEGT should not only be high end testing
for ChessBase and a few more currently storming to the top. Percentage of those
games is already high enough. When opinions from other testers differ here we
can still discuss this and just see what we can do at this point.

Best Regards
Heinz



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.