Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 09:30:23 03/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2001 at 12:22:35, Uri Blass wrote:
>On March 29, 2001 at 12:18:26, Ralf Elvsén wrote:
>
>>On March 29, 2001 at 11:27:23, Hans Christian Lykke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>32... g5 {-0.78/17 7200} 33. f5 {-1.19/16 120:00m} *
>>>
>>>[D] rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
>>>
>>>Shredder played the move expected by Deep Fritz: 33.f5
>>>Shredders evaluation dropped from -0.48/16 to -1.19/16 ?!
>>>
>>>Shredder now expecting 33...Rxf5 34. Re3
>>>
>>>Next move by Deep Fritz on Friday
>>>
>>>Venlig hilsen
>>>Hans Christian Lykke
>>
>>In this situation I wonder: are you keeping a strict 2h/move? Or do you
>>let Shredder look at all moves at the depth?
>>
>>If you terminate the search after exactly 2h and don't let shredder finish
>>an iteration I think this game isn't particularly interesting. This is
>>not even close to how a program would allocate time in a real game.
>
>This is not close to how a program allocate time in a real game but it does not
>do the game not interesting.
>
>In a real game programs never have 2 hours per move so the level in this game
>should be higher than the level in a real game.
>
>Uri
See my reply to Bertil below. The program might know it is losing
but is forced to play the move anyway. Not the kind of rules I like.
Ralf
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.