Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Did a computer programmer try...?

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 11:36:49 04/25/98

Go up one level in this thread


On April 25, 1998 at 10:48:18, blass uri wrote:

>
>On April 25, 1998 at 09:02:46, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On April 25, 1998 at 05:39:58, blass uri wrote:
>>
>>>1)I think that if a computer program "thinks" it stand better then it
>>>should "think" more to accept a move and to check more the
>>>possibilities of the opponent.
>>>did some programmer try this idea?
>>
>>what does taking more time accomplish???  other than to get you into
>>time trouble later in the game..
>>
>my idea was not to waste more time about a move but to waste more time
>about accepting moves and less time about rejecting moves.
>It is important when the computer evaluate it has adventage because
>in this way the computer can see more quickly if its evaluation is
>wrong.
>If its evaluation is right it is not very important if it miss something
>better
>because the result may be that it win more slowly
>
>>
>>>
>>>2)did a computer programmer try to find the probability his(her)
>>>program changes its mind if he(she) double the time of it
>>>as a function of time?
>>
>>
>>find the ICCA Journal article "Crafty goes deep" written by Monty
>>Newborn.  He analyzes this on a large set of random positions, searched
>>all the way out to 15 plies..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>3)did any computer programmer try to give the computer to calculate
>>>what is the best move if the opponent will choose the second best
>>>move and decide about this move that it should be analysed?
>>
>>
>>again, what would be the point?  If your "best" move prediction isn't
>>very accurate, that needs to be fixed, rather than trying to
>>second-guess
>>yourself and waste time searching things you think are second best..
>
>the point is if the "best" move evaluation is correct but there is
>something better for example I see that programs do not devote
>enough time to Chaos move in the 1974 computers championship
>against Chess4.0 Nxe6.
>I checked that after the forced line Nxe6 fxe6 Qxe6+ Be7 Re1
>my programs evaluate the positon after some minutes as adventage
>for white while before Nxe6 the position is evaluated
>as advantage for black.
>it is clear that if white can tell black not to play some move Nxe6 is
>best
>so Nxe6 should be checked



Note that for every position where Nxe6 is correct, there are 1,000
positions where Nxe6 loses outright...  so trying to pick up such movs
is a speed issue, *not* a time spent issue...  I would not want to waste
time on such moves at the expense of other things in the search...



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.