Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 01:47:04 04/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 17:45:55, Gordon Rattray wrote: >I find this interesting since I have recently participated in a postal >tournament where the use of computers was expected by all competitors - so no >immoral cheating was going on. I wanted to investigate how I could be use my 2 >PCs and numerous chess programs to find best moves given a significant length of >time. I experimented with the following approach. > >I had one program running continuously on one PC for the duration of the >analysis period. The idea being that some moves may require a certain depth to >be reached and it may be unwise to cut all programs short. > >My second PC was used more in a swapping fashion with multiple programs being >given a time slot one after another. I record details such as score, principle >variation, etc. for each one. > >If all programs agree, including the one not being swapped out, I play that >move. My hope is that if the relatively deep search in combination with using a >variety of programs all agree, the chances of missing a better move have been >minimised. > >If there is disagreement between the programs, I draw up a list of candidates >based on all the suggestions. I then for each program show it the candidates >that it didn't agree with and I record how much of a difference there was >compared with the program's initial choice. At this point some programs "admit" >the candidate is better by showing a better score. For those who show a big >drop, I play out more of the principle variation in hope that one of the >programs in question will prove itself correct or wrong. > >The above still leaves a lot of cases where there remains disagreement. I >generally find myself making up variation trees with each program getting a >chance to evaluate the leaf positions. So no great surprises here, as I often >have to use my own judgement, but this approach does give me a lot of >information to guide me. Deciding on a when to swap programs is naturally >tricky. I give a preference to the unswapped program unless any of the other >programs find a "better" move that I failed to disprove. > >Of course, some best moves will still be missed. If only a guaranteed approach >existed... ;-) This is my "first draft" approach and I'm looking for ways to >improve it, so any suggestions/comments will be appreciated. > >Gordon Nice to see someone taking a systematic approach to this. You mentioned you have to use your own judgement, so the better operator the better¨ result? Would it be possible to implement this as a mindless algoritm so a patzer would get the same result? I guess not since you can't compare evaluation scores between programs. When using your judgement I assume it is important to have an idea about the strengths/weaknesses of the various programs. E.g. in some endings I wouldn't trust some programs and when e.g. launching pawn storms I wouldn't trust others. Ralf
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.