Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Sep 2, 2016 03:45 AM UTC:
Ok, with colors reversed, the side with the augmented knights still won at all three time controls.
So I changed the evaluation for the augmented knight to 3.75 and reran. Still won at 5 and 10 minutes. At 20 minutes it was a draw by repetition. So I kicked it off again with an hour a side before leaving for work. That ended in a draw by repetition too. This does not necessarily say which evaluation is better (although H.G. is probably right - he's done a lot more work on piece evaluations that I have with his program, FairyMax.) We're likely to get more draws when we tell the engine that the position is balanced by tweaking values. To really establish, you'd need to run tests between different engines that are same except that each has a different idea what the augmented knight is worth, and see which performs better.
Regarding balance, also consider the possibility that the extra pawn you added may be worth less than a pawn. It can't make a double move, and it prevents the pawn behind it from making a double move. You'd have to move the new pawn twice before the existing d-pawn can make a double move. And blocking the d-pawn hinders the development of the queen's bishop.
Regarding open vs. closed play - yes, this, or any other evaluation criteria or paramaters can certainly alter results with unpredictable results. As such, my tests aren't really proof of anything, but are still a useful indicator. Confidence increases as you run more and more tests with different engines, different openings, different tuning ...
Regarding adding Enep to old ChessV, this should not be very difficult but does require recompiling the source code. There may be value in doing this as, at present at least, the old version contains a stronger engine then the new version (a complete re-write in C# designed more for universality than playing strength.) You could also look at adding this to SjaakII and/or FairyMax. They are programmed with text files, so if they can support Enep there's no recompiling involved. I think both programs are capable. Then you can run tests with WinBoard.
Ok, with colors reversed, the side with the augmented knights still won at all three time controls.
So I changed the evaluation for the augmented knight to 3.75 and reran. Still won at 5 and 10 minutes. At 20 minutes it was a draw by repetition. So I kicked it off again with an hour a side before leaving for work. That ended in a draw by repetition too. This does not necessarily say which evaluation is better (although H.G. is probably right - he's done a lot more work on piece evaluations that I have with his program, FairyMax.) We're likely to get more draws when we tell the engine that the position is balanced by tweaking values. To really establish, you'd need to run tests between different engines that are same except that each has a different idea what the augmented knight is worth, and see which performs better.
Regarding balance, also consider the possibility that the extra pawn you added may be worth less than a pawn. It can't make a double move, and it prevents the pawn behind it from making a double move. You'd have to move the new pawn twice before the existing d-pawn can make a double move. And blocking the d-pawn hinders the development of the queen's bishop.
Regarding open vs. closed play - yes, this, or any other evaluation criteria or paramaters can certainly alter results with unpredictable results. As such, my tests aren't really proof of anything, but are still a useful indicator. Confidence increases as you run more and more tests with different engines, different openings, different tuning ...
Regarding adding Enep to old ChessV, this should not be very difficult but does require recompiling the source code. There may be value in doing this as, at present at least, the old version contains a stronger engine then the new version (a complete re-write in C# designed more for universality than playing strength.) You could also look at adding this to SjaakII and/or FairyMax. They are programmed with text files, so if they can support Enep there's no recompiling involved. I think both programs are capable. Then you can run tests with WinBoard.