Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 17:12:16 12/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 1999 at 19:10:48, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>On December 27, 1999 at 18:20:27, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>bob you're saying exactly what i wrote above... ...in case of
>gross eval blunders you see them of course, in case program is having
>a bug which causes it to crash then it directly loses bunches of games...
>...but other changes are pretty hard to judge.
>
>Like if i add some stupid and completely insane pruning then it'll
>have at judgeturpin for sure a 100 points more at blitz.
That's where the pleasure of reading your posts stands, exactly. Endless laughs
at reading things like the sentence above.
Keep on amusing us.
Christophe
>If you search 6 ply at blitz then you can rape search and still
>do better...
>
>
>>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.