Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:22:26 12/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2003 at 22:57:28, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On December 23, 2003 at 21:44:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >[snip] > >>Look at Shaeffer's stuff on Sun Phoenix. He had problems getting reasonable >>efficiency on a distributed search with an old 10mbit ethernet LAN, so he >>split the system into two parts, one that searched normally, one that did a >>fast tactics-only search. And he reached the same conclusion. What to do >>when they disagree. Or when the positional search says "play X" and the >>tactical search says "X sucks". :) > >I wouldn't play X. Seems obvious to me. :) Right. But what _will_ you play? That's all you got. :) > >On a more serious note: I would assume that the tactical and the positional >search wouldn't be normal searches, where we only get one best move and the >knowledge about all the other moves is limited to "being worse". What he did was a normal search with one "engine", and the tactical search with the other. Suppose after 3 minutes the normal engine says play Rh7, with an eval of +1.5, while the tactical search has gone 1-2 plies deeper and has failed low on Rh7 and got a score of -1.9. What would you do? That turns into an _interesting_ question. > > >>I don't like the concept myself, but perhaps it can work. > >I like the concept, as it seems that that's often how humans play chess. (they >like some moves but have to verify whether they're also tactically sound) >Whether the concept is also applicable to computers is another question... >anyway, I think it's something worth to try, instead of "going where everybody >else has gone". > >Sargon Computers sort of do both at the same time, when you think about it. The search and the eval cooperate. But trying to separate them brings up some "issues". Not that it can't work. It just doesn't seem reasonable. IE in the case of Schaeffer, it was an admission "I can't use these processors to make the real search go faster..." That is why it was distasteful, it was an admission of failure, rather than tackling the difficult problem head-on.
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.