Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 06:07:17 02/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2004 at 06:26:20, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 06, 2004 at 05:54:29, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On February 06, 2004 at 03:42:42, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 06, 2004 at 02:15:35, Tord Romstad wrote: >>> >>>>On February 05, 2004 at 15:15:47, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>I think that you underestimate your engine. >>>>>It seems to get similiar depth to crafty. >>>>> >>>>>For example in the following position it got depth 11 even in blitz 4+2 >>>> >>>>Yes, 11 plies in blitz games is not unusual. But 11 plies in Gothmog and 11 >>>>plies in Crafty is not the same. I do much more forward pruning and depth >>>>reductions than Bob, and fewer extensions. In non-tactical positions like >>>>the one you give, my qsearch is also considerably smaller than Bob's (I think). >>>> >>>>Tord >>> >>>I do not think that there is a big difference. >>>Crafty searches bigger tree because it searches more irrelevant lines. >>> >>>I guess that the main advantage of Crafty relative to Gothmog when you use one >>>processor is superior evaluation(Gothmog's evaluation is more complex but bigger >>>is not always better and not having bugs or some too optimistic scores of >>>gothmog that lead to wrong sacrifices can be more important and it is possible >>>that Gothmog can get crafty level if you only reduce the big positional scores >>>that encourage it to sacrifice). >>> >>>I do not think that gothmog see less than crafty in the relevant lines(crafty >>>has bigger tree but it proves nothing). >>>I know that test suites are no proof but results of the gcp test suite give me >>>the impression that cases when Gothmog can see more than crafty are not rare. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I have the theory that the greater your search resources (ie combination of time >>and hardware), the less important is the search, and the more important is the >>evaluation. > >I do not agree with that theory. > >For example suppose a program has no tablebases. > >With deep search it may not need knowledge how to win KQ vs K when with small >search it may need the knowledge. > >If the hardware is fast enough the program can solve the game with only piece >square table evaluation. > >Of course we are not going to see it but with good hardware evaluation what win >is better in some endgames become unimportant because the program will not fail >to win thanks to search. > >Uri Vas's point is this (and its the same reason Zappa is a relatively weak engine tactically): If you are playing at 40 / 2 on a quad opteron, do you care how many WAC positions you can solve in 1 second? anthony
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.