Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:10:56 08/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2000 at 10:42:05, pavel wrote: >On August 26, 2000 at 09:21:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 26, 2000 at 09:16:50, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>I tried this position from the game century3-crafty17.11 >>> >>>[D]rnbqk2r/pp1p1ppp/4pn2/4P3/1b1N4/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 1 >>> >>>Crafty17.13 played 6...Qc7 >>> >>>I gave my Crafty17.11 as engine for Hiarcs with 128 Mbyes hash time control of 4 >>>hours/60 moves >>>(I guess that this time control is similiar to 2 hours/60 moves on the alpha) >>> >>>My Crafty17.11 changed its mind in the last second at depth 12 from 6..Qc7(0.15 >>>pawn advantage) to the better move 6...Nd5(0.16 pawns advantage). >>> >>>I am interested to know crafty17.13's opinion. >>>Can crafty17.13 avoid 6...Qc7 at depth 12? >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>It avoids it by depth=10. The problem was that the mode we were using forced it >>to play Qc7 as it was a book move. Somehow we followed a very rarely played >>line, but until I get the log files from Graham I can't tell exactly why. I >>did notice a pretty significant CAP score that might have pulled it down that >>line erroneously... > > >do you think adding the CAP score to crafty was a bad decision? >or 'in other words' do you think it could have played better without them? > >thanks >pavel It is one of those "six of one, half-dozen of the other" questions. In some positions, CAP scores are wrong. In others, they are great. IE it might have done much better against Rebel, and then lost against someone else. Very hard to say. The 'hand-tuned' book is probably best, but it is too labor-intensive. I still believe it is possible to do an automatic book. I haven't given up on it yet.
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.