Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Bebe and Belle

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 12:35:17 10/06/99

Go up one level in this thread


On October 06, 1999 at 10:23:21, Eelco de Groot wrote:

>
>On October 06, 1999 at 10:01:14, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On October 06, 1999 at 04:21:31, Eelco de Groot wrote:
>>
>>>Robert, Eugene, what does prevent Crafty of adopting the better search of Cray
>>>Blitz? I understand there are big architectural differences but what do you
>>>think would be the main factor?
>>>
>>>Thanks for any comments,
>>>
>>>Eelco
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Not a thing.  IE I have been experimenting with singular extensions (used in
>>Cray Blitz) off an on.  I just haven't found anything that I particularly like
>>yet...  But you can bet that nothing inside cray blitz will be lost, except
>>for the vectorizabile stuff that will perform very poorly on a PC.  But other
>>search ideas used there will eventually be tried in Crafty...
>>
>>
>
>Robert , you do an awful lot of  your testing on ICC at Blitz-timecontrols.
>Maybe singular extensions would do better at longer timecontrols? I remember
>having read that somewhere, that the results were better with deeper searches.
>
>Regards,Eelco


Most testing is at blitz on ICC. But I pay much less attention to the results.
IE Crafty's rating has been much more stable in standard than in blitz, and I
have been paying much more attention to how it does at longer time controls.  I
do notice things at blitz, but I make sure that before I change something, that
it doesn't make it worse at longer time controls.

For things like SE, I don't use ICC to test that.  I use test suites.  IE, if
I can get 300 WAC positions in 60 secs per move without, I would hope that I can
get 300 right in less than 60 seconds per move with SE.  That is how I generally
test.  And then I have some non-tactical positions (ie the kopec test suite)
that I run to be sure that in non-tactical positions I am not signficantly
slower than before...

For testing things like extensions, ICC isn't the right place.  ICC is good
for overall evaluation tuning experiments, but a single extension might not
affect but 1 in 10 games, so that would be non-optimal test results if ICC
was the primary evaluation tool...



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.