Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:00:15 09/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 2001 at 01:18:21, Christophe Theron wrote: >On August 31, 2001 at 16:05:48, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On August 31, 2001 at 13:05:35, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>It does not make any sense to talk about "optimizing for 386 or 486 tournament >>>time controls". >> >>How come ? It makes perfect sense IMHO : the conclusion ( and a very possible >>one) is that it never existed - if this conclusion ( or any other one btw) is >>reached it was useful to talk about it as a problem that obviously was of >>interest to some ( they took the effort to post ) was there and was resolved . >>People who think it is futile can keep away from the thread or ask for >>moderation if they think it hurts their general reading experience. People who >>have valuable information and feel like joining can provide it and help the less >>knowledgeable. If someone has no new information, opinions or questions he can >>still read and learn as long as interested. >> >>I sometimes think this policy could be useful in some of the Deep Blue threads >>also. >> >>And I don't see I suggested anything that contradicts your statement anywhere >>anyway - as I agree to your opinion. >> >>> >>>It would take years to achieve a task like this, and while this optimization job >>>would take place the author would not be able to make any serious change in his >>>program. >> >>Maybe your opinion is too extreme here ( or better your idea how such an >>optimization might happen) . It might be more about ways of testing . An extreme >>example : an author tests every major change he makes in 1000 1/0 bullet games >>against GNU on his dedicated test computer . The engine might end up being >>overtuned for being successful against GNU in the end - and it is conceivable it >>will be stronger in Bullet games than at slower time controls. >> >>I have read a few posts from chess programmers and beta-testers that explained >>how they do their tests and I think some of them seemed to show something that >>points into a similar direction but I am not the right person to discuss this. >> >>> >>>An author simply tries to make his program stronger, and that's already a task >>>difficult enough, from the human point of view. >>> >>>I do not know of any improvement that would be a blitz improvement only (I mean >>>an improvement that would only help in blitz and not at longer time controls). >>>Likewise, I do not know any improvement that would only help at long time >>>controls. >> >>I think some of the things Genius _seems_ to do might be better in blitz than in >>longer games- for example the way it seems to evaluate some pawn structures , >>but I won't fall in the trap to talk about things I don't really understand and >>won't go on . > > > >I have a simpler explanation: Genius is handicapped at longer time controls >because of its higher branching factor. being handicapped at longer time control is the same as being oprimized for blitz. If you are interested in doing a good program for blitz you care less about the branching factor. Uri
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.