Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:33:54 11/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2000 at 18:23:30, Torstein Hall wrote: >On November 17, 2000 at 17:44:50, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 17, 2000 at 17:20:25, Fernando Villegas wrote: >><snipped> >>>c) If it is not, how this entity compares with Schredder IF two top programs are >>>harnessed toguether? I suppose many experiment has been already performed before >>>delivery. >> >>I think that it is has some rules based on evaluations and main lines. >> >>Example 1:If engine A fail low after 1 second and engine B fail low after 10 >>seconds with the same main line then it is logical to assume that engine B is >>weaker in tactics in the relevant position so it is logical to choose engine A. >> >>Example 2:If engine A shows evaluations:+1.1 and the evaluation goes down to 0.5 >>when engine B has stable evaluation of 0.0 then it is logical to assume that >>engine B understands the position better(I usually expect +1.1 to go up and not >>to go down) so it is logical to choose engine B. >> >>I do not know if Shredder is using similiar ideas but this is the ideas that >>seem to me logical to try in order to be correct most of the time in choosing >>the right engine in cases when both engines have equal strength. >> >>Uri > >I feel that such a beast must be weaker than a normal program, as it have to >waste a lot of computing time. First two engines computing the same pos. Then >the third engine etc. etc. > >Torstein I disagree because of the following reasons: 1)The third engine may have a simple rule to decide so it practically may waste less than 1% of the time. 2)The two engines do not use the same time so it can be clearly less than twice slower because the playing engine may be used 90% of the time. 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.