Author: stuart taylor
Date: 09:01:40 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 10:23:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 20, 2000 at 09:09:59, blass uri wrote: > >>On July 20, 2000 at 08:19:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 20, 2000 at 02:37:07, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On July 19, 2000 at 23:42:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 14:29:53, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 14:27:58, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 12:17:57, blass uri wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 12:10:57, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Let me clarify. Of course computers always look for the best move in attack, and >>>>>>>>>also play the move they evaluate as as best. But when they see the evaluation >>>>>>>>>going down, they will look perhaps a whole extra ply deeper in search of finding >>>>>>>>>a way to bring the evaluation back up again. >>>>>>>>> But if they see their evaluation going up, they do that move, sometimes very >>>>>>>>>quickly, atleast they don't grind away labouriously trying to find something >>>>>>>>>even better, even if the first "good move" is not all that good relatively. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>My knowledge is that Junior almost always finish the iteration of moves. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If it see the evaluation goes up it will usually not play without checking all >>>>>>>>the other moves in the same iteration. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hiarcs too, usually. But if it is losing, it just goes on and on thinking, for >>>>>>>very long periods, letting its clock tick till quite near the end. >>>>>>> If that would help it salvage the position, it would be time well spent. >>>>>> >>>>>>Hiarcs is the only program that I know that does it. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>Crafty will do it also... >>>> >>>>I meant to the fact that hiarcs does not finish the iteration of moves when it >>>>fails low but does another iteration. >>>> >>> >>> >>>That has _got_ to be wrong. Why on earth would anyone write a search that >>>would fail low, and then start a new iteration (that it might not have a chance >>>of searching even the first move on) without first checking all of the remaining >>>moves at this iteration to see if one will bring the score back up? >> >>I see that I explained myself wrong. >> >>I meant to the fact that hiarcs does not *only* finish the iteration of moves >>when it fails low but does another iteration. >> >>I did not put the words only and this is the reason for the misynderstanding. >> >>Uri > > >Ok... in that case it makes sense. That is why I never stop an iteration >until time runs out. Because most of the time, I finish iteration N, and >start N+1 but never get anything back. But in the case of a fail low, which >is the easiest kind of search to execute, the fail low happens very quickly, >which then triggers using more time to see what is happening and possibly repair >things... Yes! Computers are better at making repairs, than at finding ways to damage the other side. For that you need more imagination. S.Taylor
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.