Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:20:46 06/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2004 at 13:10:06, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On June 28, 2004 at 12:50:23, Peter Fendrich wrote: > >>I'm doing similar things with GA right now. The difference between GA and >>Simulated Annealing is probably of not very important here. > >I've never heard of it actually. > >>My approach is somewhat different and I can elaborate more about it later on. >>One problem that you are probably aware of is the low number of games. I belive >>that small changes in an evaluation term will give minor differences in >>performance and 10 games will maybe not capture that. For instance, play a match >>vs some engine. Make a change that you know is lowering the strength and play >>the same match again maybe x times and see what you get. >>I would suggest shorter timecontrols in order to get more games. >>/Peter > >I was hoping to get some help running the tests, as I don't have any commercial >engines, or even windows. So all I can do is test against Yace, Zappa, pepito, >etc. The hope is to get 10x10 or 20x10 :) I think shorter time controls are >much more random. At blitz search is 99.9% of the game. > >anthony You can also say the opposite. At long time control you can avoid positional mistakes because search tell you that they are bad(The fact that you do not understand that a move let the opponent to destroy your pawn structure is not important because you can see that the opponent can translate it to advantage in mobility). At short time control evaluation is more important because you do not search deep enough to see the bad results of the bad pawn structure in terms of mobility. 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.