Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 06:16:06 11/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2000 at 08:41:24, Uri Blass wrote: >The question is how do you combine the 2 programs. Exactly. That was the point of my last paragraph. I suppose it would be essential to analyze where the strengths and weaknesses of the programs differ and interpret them as patterns recognizeable for some sort of evaluation function. I was talking with Bob about applying SMP knowledge to run different engines at the same time and base the selectivity on an advanced evaluation engine. I still think it's possible to implement and get good results. >I thought about the idea of a root processor that decides based on the root >position which engine to use. What should a root processor "look" for? >It can be based on previous evaluations of the program. > >I think that starting to use tiger13 when Gambittiger shows big scores may be a >good idea because when gambit shows a big score the job of attacking was done >and the problem of tiger that I found in the game against crafty that was posted >by thorsten was that it did not like to go to an endgame and prefered >speculation of 3 pawns and not winning a rook for a bishop but I do not believe >that it can lead to an improvement of more than 20-30 elo. It might be useful to make certain that the high evaluation of GT is maintained for x number of moves before concluding that the attack has accomplished a winning position by transposing to the endgame. Basically that would mean reducing or removing "speculation" altogether at a cetain point in the endgame. Maybe it's possible to encourage or favour the speculative approach in certain positions where the structure is immoveable in order to open up for the tactics. That might not necessarily be a good idea. Mogens.
This page took 0.01 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.