I'll test at 2/6, because that is what I always use. For my particular situation, it seems to be a good balance between:bob wrote:I am not sure what test you are going to run. The test I suggested you run was this:
Your program vs one opponent, using the 40 Silver positions, playing black and white in each, for a total of 80 games. Then run the _same_ test again and report both results to see if you see the kind of non-deterministic results I see with the programs I am using.
You don't need to use long time controls either, I have found very little difference between very fast and very slow with respect to the non-determinism. You might score differently at 1+1 than at 60+60, but for me both produce the same randomness level.
a) still being able to watch the games occasionally
b) for the engines at Eden's level, giving them much less than about 10 seconds per move will decrease their strength dramatically; they will then reach ply 4 or so instead of ply 6. I consider ply 6 a critical depth. The level of play is bad enough at this level, I will try not to decrease it even further. I also cannot decide with confidence whether the results for this level are significant as a predictor for long time controls. For engines that reach a depth of 12 in the blink of an eye, I would consider the situation to be different.
c) Ideally I would like to test at longer time controls, but I do have to finish them eventually.
So I'll just run that test at 2/6, and stop whining about you having more resources