Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:54:37 11/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2000 at 18:40:52, Torstein Hall wrote: >On November 17, 2000 at 18:33:54, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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. > >Probably true! > >>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. >> >This I think (or feel)must be wrong. >Both engine A and B have work on the position at first for the engine 3 to >deside on them. So in effect you lose a lot before you deside. And if you only >switch engine rarly, I feel that somehow the idea loses much of its point. >But perhaps Stefan can tell us more? 1)Stefan explained in a previous post that the engines are not used for equal time. 2)It is possible that after 20% of the time when both engines used 1/2 of the 20% the third engine decides which engine to use for the move so practically for every move one engine is 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.