Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:08:14 05/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2001 at 15:35:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 02, 2001 at 15:27:33, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 02, 2001 at 14:52:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 02, 2001 at 13:48:04, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>I would like to hear from the CCC group how much K will >>>>gain from having the program for 3 months. In my view, >>>>an advantage yes, but maybe not as much as I thought at >>>>first. >>>> >>>>1. K may not have the HW for the match. >>> >>>That is irrelevant. That only means that the program will be a bit >>>stronger tactically. But it does _not_ affect the knowledge at all. >>>If it doesn't understand that a pair of isolated passers are stronger >>>than a pair of connected passers in a king and pawn ending, then no >>>amount of hardware is going to teach the program that, and he will >>>find out such shortcomings quite easily. >> >>No >>It is clear that if the hardware is good enough then search is going to teach >>the program to avoid the mistake. > >no it isn't, when we are talking about a hardware advantage of barely 4. >IE 8x1ghz vs 1.5ghz for a single cpu. That will fix a _few_ things. But >it won't do a _thing_ to the positional holes in the program's evaluation. > > >> >>The question is simply if the hardware in the match is going to help. >> >>In part of the cases it can help. >>Programs without the knowledge that you give in pawn endgame may find the right >>move in some positions by search when they need a long search. >> >>I believe that I can compose a test position when programs without the right >>knowledge are going to need 8 processors to find the right move at tournament >>time control and you cannot be sure that my test position is not going to appear >>in kramnik's game. > > > >Yes, but I can compose 100 positions where the depth is _not_ the issue. Either >you understand what to do or you don't. Because you make evaluational decisions >at the _tips_ of the tree. And if you don't get 'em right, you aren't going to >go _another_ 30-40 plies deeper to let the search show the evaluation what is >going to happen. > > >> >><snipped> >>>>2. To get a real feel for Fritz 7 he will need the HW and >>>> play 40/2 games. >>> >>> >>>Not at all. Any GM I know can play blitz games and determine program >>>weaknesses. >> >>This was exactly the mistake of adams against deep Junior in dortmund. >> >>He played the same opening against junior before the match and won at blitz but >>unfortunately Junior played better at tournament time control and adams could >>get only a draw. >> >>Uri > > >He didn't do what I suggested. I don't suggest using blitz games to find >openings that you can win with. I suggested using blitz games to find out >what your opponent doesn't understand evaluation-wise. Just play the games >and watch its scores and PVs. Chessbase may give kramnik a version that shows no scores and no PVs. I am also not sure if the evaluation is going to be static evaluation. It is possible to give 1 or 2 of the 8 processors to play comp-comp games between Fritz with the default evaluation and Fritz with another evaluation in order to learn to change slightly the evaluation during the game if Fritz with the default evaluation is losing the games. 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.