Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:02:26 02/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2001 at 17:34:29, Christophe Theron wrote: >On February 27, 2001 at 16:40:09, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 27, 2001 at 12:47:23, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On February 27, 2001 at 01:06:19, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On February 26, 2001 at 23:13:26, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>><snipped> >>>>>The question of the branching factor is a crucial one indeed, and as far as I >>>>>know it is the only reason that could explain that a program needs faster >>>>>hardware or longer time controls. >>>>> >>>>>For example, Genius has an horrible branching factor, which is the reason why it >>>>>is still good at blitz (well at least on slower computers) and so bad at long >>>>>time controls on current hardware. >>>>> >>>>>I think that it should be possible to back up claims that a given program needs >>>>>faster hardware or longer time controls by measuring its branching factor. If a >>>>>program has a much better branching factor that the other ones, then it is a >>>>>strong indication that it will be superior as time controls and/or processor >>>>>power increases. >>>>> >>>>>Any volunteers? >>>> >>>>If you get a smaller branching factor from a right pruning idea then you made an >>>>improvement for long time control but it is also possible that you got a smaller >>>>branching factor by pruning some logical moves and in this case the smaller >>>>branching factor is counter productive. >>> >>> >>>Of course. You know, it's the basic fight of the chess programmer! >>> >>> >>> >>>>It is also possible that you get a bigger branching factor from adding some >>>>extensions and the extensions may be productive at long time control. >>> >>> >>>Why should extensions be productive more at longer time controls? >>> >>>It could very well be the opposite. >> >>I agree that it can be also the opposite but I can imzgine extensions that are >>productive only at long time control and my example of playing against yourself >>and learning is an example. > > >You first have to prove that your extension is productive. I have some examples from analyzing games that I could prove things by this extension and chess programs without this extension will practically never find them because they are too deep and it cause me to believe that it is productive if you do not use it too much(use it only in 10% of the time so in the worst case the demage is that you are slower by 10%). I do not say that it can be responsible for a very big improvement at long time control but I believe that it can be responsible for some improvement. I remember 2 examples when this extension could help me to prove things that programs cannot see even after many hours One example is seeing the draw in deeper blue-kasparov(it could not change the result in this case but maybe it could change the result some moves before when Deeper blue did the drawing error but in this case the long time control that it could help is only correspondence game and not tournament time control game) Another example is that I found that Rebel could lose against anand after Qe6 if it was playing against itself when using this extension could prevent Rebel to do the losing error some moves after Qe6(I have the game but I do not remember in what file I saved it and I did not look for it in order to post the relevant position). 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.