Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:20:27 12/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 1999 at 16:01:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 27, 1999 at 15:38:11, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On December 27, 1999 at 14:57:09, Ed Schröder wrote: >>[snip] >>How to know which is best? >> >>I think Dr. Hyatt's approach is a good one -- play a bazillion games on the net >>against quality opponents. I see that Chris W. and Vincent D. have also >>followed this strategy. Since the new improvements to Rebel also allow this > >Partly true and partly wrong. > >Dead wrong conclusion would be that i improve my program in order to blitz >better. >A few blitz game shows bugs in evaluation. however i feel blitz is >not relevant for my engine to measure it strength at these days. >The general problem of blitz games is that they go too fast. >I can't examine a 100 games each days! > >I feel standard rated is a lot more important. However Bob success is so >massive that there play hundreds of crafties out there. So rating >is so much dependant upon how diep scores against the current crafty version >that it's hard to sometimes draw conclusions. Some people running >diep at icc especially for this reason put !computer therefore. > >Secret has !computer but plays every computer unrated. Moron has >!computer only at blitz, otherwise it is at the interesting hours >only busy playing a thousand 3 0 games >against a dual crafty. > >Despite its allowing all computers at all levels >unrated (and rated at standard), to my big surprise not many apart >from a few programmers/bookmakers match Moron with their program. The >vaste majority of operators seemingly only kick on their dicks height, >as they do usual find the quickest level that they can match DIEP at >running under judgeturpin (allowing rated against everyone, no rating >limits. 1100 rated sometimes fanatically play it a couple of games). > >>kind of competition directly, I expect that you can gather a massive amount of >>data with free testers at will. You can see how a change in Rebel performs >>against top computers. You can see how a change in Rebel performs against top > >don't expect a single 40 in 2 game though Ed in case you're interested... >...icc doesn't allow m moves in t time levels. > >>humans. I suggest you may write a parameter driven version of Rebel (or an >>engine that can write personalities to disk based upon a set of criteria) and >>then run one hundred games with the parameter at one setting, change the setting >>and run another hundred. Using this sort of technique, you can find out what >>settings work best against various types of competition. I think that will work >>very much better than your contest, since the attempts at producing good >>settings by others will be redundant and unscientific, for the most part. > >I completely disagree here. 100 blitz games is not gonna show much. >apart from that you're dependant against who you play. > I disagree with your disagreement. :) Blitz games _are_ useful. Because they can, with a lot of work, highlight holes that have to be fixed. IE the most recent change to my eval, reported here a few weeks ago. Roman watched it play against several different GM players, and he noticed that once it got to king and pawn endings, it greatly over-valued connected passers vs non- connected passers. And that 'hole' was quickly repaired, so that it hasn't lost to that particular glitch again. But this was found from blitz games. I am careful about using blitz games, of course, as at the Paris WMCCC event I had allowed the tuning to get grossly out of line. It was holy hell at blitz on ICC, but it played badly at longer time controls vs computers. I tend to watch all the standard games it plays carefully (Varguz generally plays at least 2 one hour + games every day, others are doing the same thing with commercial programs). But blitz games _can_ reveal weaknesses. I have found passed pawn problems, distant passed pawn problems, majority problems, and so forth. By going over lots of games quickly looking for that "pattern/trend" that is giving it problems... > >>By using the net as a resource, you double your compute power. By selling >>copies of Rebel that can use the net as a resource you multiply your compute >>power by the number of sales (e.g. you can gather a huge number of games from >>the net and calculate strengths and weaknesses against rated opponents and you >>don't even have to run them). >> >>Suggestion: >>Have Rebel automatically annotate the network games with settings information so >>that you can glean the effectiveness of various settings.
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.