H6 VS SF17.09.2017

[Scacchista1977]

5960x - 8 cores for engine
Hash: 512 Mb
time: 5'+0"
no book
Tbase: yes




http://www58.zippyshare.com/v/6IgYEyYa/file.html

[Jouni]

Houdini has at least 2 loss with time, but SF none? No need to change anything in SF time management!

[Houdini]

There are 10 time losses for Houdini in the match.
Which defeats the whole point of playing the match...

Playing long engine games without time increment is futile, beyond move 100 it becomes a matter of which engine has the default Move Overhead value that works best for the GUI that plays the match.

If you care about the quality of the games, an increment is mandatory. Instead of playing 5+0 games, why not 5+1 sec or 4+1sec?

[Scacchista1977]

There are 10 time losses for Houdini in the match.
Which defeats the whole point of playing the match...

Playing long engine games without time increment is futile, beyond move 100 it becomes a matter of which engine has the default Move Overhead value that works best for the GUI that plays the match.

If you care about the quality of the games, an increment is mandatory. Instead of playing 5+0 games, why not 5+1 sec or 4+1sec?

For this test I used the default engines settings. I'll do a test with the same settings but time 4 + 1.
Greetings

[JJJ]

Yeap, without time increment these test doesn't mean anything.

[Scacchista1977]

Yeap, without time increment these test doesn't mean anything.

Sorry but I do not agree with this statement, every test has its usefulness!
I say this as a Houdini supporter since version 2 and this Robert Houdart I believe that know it!

[CheckersGuy]

Yeap, without time increment these test doesn't mean anything.

Sorry but I do not agree with this statement, every test has its usefulness!
I say this as a Houdini supporter since version 2 and this Robert Houdart I believe that know it!

What usefull information did you get from that test then ?

[Houdini]

Sorry but I do not agree with this statement, every test has its usefulness!
I say this as a Houdini supporter since version 2 and this Robert Houdart I believe that know it!

I do confirm that!

[mjlef]

Yeap, without time increment these test doesn't mean anything.

This I do not understand. Shouldn't an engine's time control algorithms adjust appropriately for any increment, including "sudden death". After all, sudden death is often used to decide tied matches.

[Houdini]

Yeap, without time increment these test doesn't mean anything.

This I do not understand. Shouldn't an engine's time control algorithms adjust appropriately for any increment, including "sudden death". After all, sudden death is often used to decide tied matches.

Everything depends on the overhead or lag in the communication with the GUI or application that plays the match.
If the GUI overhead is, say, 25 msec and the engine doesn't know that, it will overstep the time.
This implies that if you really want to play sudden death games, it's essential to feed the engine the correct value for the Move Overhead - if the engine publishes such a parameter.

There is also the issue of the quality of the game you produce. Starting with 5 minutes, engines will easily use 5 to 10 seconds in the early moves. And then in the final stage of the game you force them to play with a handful of milliseconds... doesn't make sense.

An easy solution to both issues is to use a small increment, it avoids the Move Overhead race, and provides some quality in the final stages of the game.