Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:37:49 01/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2001 at 14:09:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 05, 2001 at 08:50:43, José Carlos wrote: > >>On January 05, 2001 at 08:38:07, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 05, 2001 at 08:04:38, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>> >>>>On January 05, 2001 at 07:50:42, Mark Schreiber wrote: >>>> >>>>>In the match with v/d Wiel, Rebel is running on P3 866 MHz. Using a faster >>>>>computer would be an improvemnt. Maybe a P4 1.5 GHz. They could also improve >>>>>Rebel to run on dual or multi processor like Junior. The Junior that ran on an 8 >>>>>processor at Dortmund would clobber v/d Wiel. At Dortmund, Junior performed at >>>>>Fide 2700. >>>> >>>>You are wrong. Van der Wiel enforces games which are highly non-tactically. A >>>>high node/sec won't help here. Deep Junior would have the same trouble. >>>> >>>>Uli >>> >>>I disagree. >>>Programs can find better positional moves when they search deeper. >> >> But the curve strength/speed in non-tactical positions is almost flat. >> For examples, if a program doesn't understand weak pawns, a speed improvment >>won't help it unless it can find the loss of the pawn, which turns the position >>into tactics. >> I understand speed can help sometimes in strategical positions, very few IMO. >> >> José C. >> >>>Uri > > >Speed is absolutely _not_ going to repair holes in a program's evaluation. If >it is missing something important (say how to handle blocked pawn positions) >then making it run 10x faster won't help one iota... Deeper search can help to repair holes in program evaluation. It is possible that the program does not understand that a move is not good because the opponent has a positional advantage at small depth but at big depth it can see that the opponent can get a positional advantage that it knows to evaluate. 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.