Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 17:44:56 10/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 26, 2000 at 19:07:01, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 26, 2000 at 18:25:33, Eelco de Groot wrote: > >>On October 26, 2000 at 16:53:58, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 26, 2000 at 15:33:17, Marc van Hal wrote: >>> >>>>On faster sytems the depth of plys, looks ahead with much chess knowledge is >>>>about the same, as with the normal chess knowledge settings. >>>>so putting it higher should improve all chess programs on faster systems. >>>> I only have an 800 amd, so you can imagine what hapens on fater systems. >>>>Or am I wrong here? >>>>only a try to help >>>> >>>>Marc van Hal >>> >>>I do not understand. >>> >>>In most chess programs there is no parameter that is called chess knowledge. >>>I know only about one program with this parameter(Rebel) >>> >>>Increasing this parameter does not help Rebel to get better results and the time >>>control is not important. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I thought too that maybe Marc was referring to Rebel's "Chess Knowledge". >>Increasing this parameter means that rebel needs more time to evaluate every >>position. So the time needed to complete a ply should in theory go up a lot, >>unless there would be very unexpected side-effects that somehow Rebel can find >>refuting lines quicker now and the search would become more efficient that way >>or something like that. I never really tried it but I know other people did. But >>in theory time to complete a ply should increase and for tournament games this >>is not compensated enough by the better understanding because of extra >>knowledge. But especially for analysis the exact time needed is not so important >>so there it is worth a try I think. > >I disagree. >The exact time is important also for analysis. >Another point is that the problem with chess knowledge=500 is not only smaller >number of nodes per second but also the fact that Rebel changes its mind more >often and the result of this is that Rebel need more nodes and not only more >time to finish the same depth. > > > to > But we do not know much from Ed in which >>kind of positions this extra 'Chess Knowledge' can be used. > >I think that this is not extra knowledge but less lazy evaluation. > >Rebel without big chess knowledge simply does not use the evaluation function in >part of the cases(if the score of lazy evaluation tells Rebel that probably the >full evaluation will not improve the real score significantly). > >The result is that Rebel is not sensitive to small changes in the evaluation so >it can search deeper. > >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.