Author: Steve Glanzfeld
Date: 01:11:57 09/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2005 at 21:02:36, Mig Greengard wrote: >Convinced of what? It's a goal, not a conclusion, and there aren't any examples >yet that I'm aware of. If a human-like training partner can be devised that, as >a consequence, also plays a little weaker against other computers, that would be >a worthy achievement. Yes, but the experience actually is: more useful, effective knowledge doesn't make a program slower. It will lead to more cutoffs in the search tree. The bigger eval function will need more time sometimes* but as a tradeoff, the engine may be equally quick or even quicker. Fritz 9 has more knowledge AND is tactically stronger than Fritz 5.32. *) Positional and other sophisticated evaluation functions are not used when the material balance is already deceisive. When you're up a rook, you don't care much if your bishop is good or bad. Since most possible continuations (nowadays 9+ plies as a typical minimum, +extension) are absolutely crazy, these are the majority of positions which have to be evaluated, and the "knowledge burden" will affect only a few. Regarding Zappa, I think you'll either need to use correspondence time controls and/or hardware like NASA has, to enjoy World Champion strength :) Steve
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.