Author: blass uri
Date: 12:24:51 04/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 1998 at 14:36:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... if you give the computer 3 minutes per move you are probably right but if you give the computer 3 hours per move I believe that it is better that the computer will use one hour for analysing such moves at the expence of other things in the search. today 3 hours can be in some years 3 minutes. and I use the computer for hours in my correspondence games.
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.