Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 14:13:19 11/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 12, 2003 at 17:00:04, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>You could even argue the opposite, with longer TC the engine doesn't need >>hand-coded eval because the search will resolve a lot of the stuff automaticly. > > >It would not actually, due the diminishing rate of depth reached over time. >That is whay I meant by speed differences getting evened out. MacChess has a >very simple eval and is a very fast searcher. But it gets killed by slower >searchers with more advanced eval terms. It is very rare for engines to cross-over like that, one being better at blitz and the other at standard, a bad program is usually bad at all time controls. I believe it is about producing the best move as fast as possible and this is not a time control issue at all. >So we are back to the fact that blitz is different than standard. An engine can >be tuned for blitz or for standard as well (at least some do this). I object to the word 'fact' but I suppose it is possible :) -S. >MH
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.