Author: Chessfun
Date: 21:43:16 02/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2000 at 21:33:36, Christophe Theron wrote: >On February 01, 2000 at 20:46:35, Chessfun wrote: > >>On February 01, 2000 at 20:36:28, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On February 01, 2000 at 20:27:01, Chessfun wrote: >>>>On February 01, 2000 at 19:30:29, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>On February 01, 2000 at 19:19:58, Côme wrote: >>>>>>On February 01, 2000 at 19:09:18, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Junior 6a won 12-8, +8 -4 =8. Games will be posted at >>>>>>>http://www.computerschach.de/tourn/cad00.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Next match, Century - Hiarcs 7.32. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Enrique >>>>>> >>>>>>Hello Enrique, >>>>>>Great Tournament ! >>>>>>Few months ago CT destroy all this opponent, but now the new king seem to be >>>>>>Junior 6a ! >>>>>>What do you think Enrique? >>>>> >>>>>I suspect that you are reading a lot more into this tournament than is possible. >>>>>Junior (by the SSDF) indeed looks very strong. But this tournament was at >>>>>fairly short time controls. Hence, the data is not at all commensurate with >>>>>SSDF testing [Though I am not sure you implied that]. >>>> >>>> >>>>According to both Enrique and Christophe the 40"/40 40"/40 40 as used >>>>in this tourney is just as suitable a time control as those used by the >>>>SSDF, to measure the strength of a program. Christophe stated 60 game, >>>>therefore I am somewhat extracting that he would also see these times >>>>the same way. >>> >>>Any time control is suitable to measure the strength of a program. Blitz, >>>lightning, Postal (24 Hrs/move or even longer), whatever. But 40 moves in 40 >>>minutes is a full ply shorter than 40/2. In other words, you are measuring >>>different things. It could be especially salient if extensions kick in at some >>>point in the analysis. >>> >>>The point I think I wanted to make, but failed completely to do so, was that a >>>1000:0 result at 40/2 and a 0:1000 result at 40/40 could be genuine aritfacts of >>>how the programs play (however unlikely). >>> >>>People sometimes see a short set of games at some time control very different >>>from the SSDF results and imagine that there is a refutation, confirmation or >>>otherwise in connection to the SSDF results. In reality, it's none of the >>>above. Apples compared to oranges. >> >> >>It is possible I could also expressed better. The point I was >>trying to make was the time control 40"/40 40"/40 40 is far from >>-short- and that the results produced at these time controls should >>produce results similar to the SSDF results after a similar # of games. >>Thanks. > > >I agree with you, Chessfun. > >More generally, I don't care about the time controls used to test my program. I >accept any time control, and if I see that Tiger does not do well at a given >time control, I'll work to improve it. Even if it is 1mn/game. Even if it is >1mn/game on a 386. > > > Christophe I love this attitude...truly :-) Thanks.
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.