Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:30:03 04/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2000 at 16:11:08, Mogens Larsen wrote:
>On April 24, 2000 at 15:24:00, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>Most of the games played on earth are played at faster time controls.
>
>I was talking about tournament games at a certain level. The level computer
>chess programs wishes to compete at. I wasn't talking about a friendly game of
>chess against your neighbour.
>
>>I think generally users use time controls faster than tournament time controls.
>
>I agree.
>
>>I wonder. I remember a test suite published in a french magazine some years ago.
>>The computers of that time had to think for several minutes in order to solve
>>the problems. And these problems came from grandmaster games (far over the level
>>of even a good club chess player).
>>
>>Current computers can solve all the problems in only a few seconds. Most
>>problems are solved in less than 1 second.
>
>Problem suits are a poor substitute for real games. Can the program reach the
>required position by itself. In most cases the answer will be no IMHO.
>
>>The difference in search depth between blitz and tournament time controls is 4
>>plies in average.
>>
>>Top programs already manage to search 8-9 plies deep in blitz.
>>
>>8-9 plies in blitz and 12-13 plies at tournament time controls. No big deal.
>
>I'm not sure that is entirely true, but what do I know.
>
>>Why using the reference to human games?
>>
>>For correspondance games you might prefer the other one.
>
>Well, they're human too I assume. Since the rating list is not based over the
>board chess, I'll stick with program B anytime.
>
>>Thanks, I felt a little bit sorry that nobody wanted to discuss these issues.
>
>Maybe it's because you (and the opposition) have already made up your mind up
>regarding this issue.
>
>Best wishes...
>Mogens
This is not the case. What do I gain from discussing these issues? If it's just
for the pleasure of expressing my opinion, I can tell you that at this time I
have other more important things to do.
Actually I tried to initiate a discussion about the subject because I'm myself
still trying to understand these issues. The problem is complex so I tried to
break it up in smaller parts and I was expecting some reactions from other
programmers or interested readers.
I change my mind very often and I am not ashamed to do so. About the topic that
was discussed, I have already done some analysis work. So I already have an
opinion, that's true. But I do listen to what others say and I'm ready to adapt
my "model" if somebody comes with an interesting point.
But the discussion aborted because nobody (except you) is willing to take the
points I expressed one by one and seriously think about them...
Christophe
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.