Author: Komputer Korner
Date: 22:11:22 04/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
Oh No, here we go again, another challenge to the mathematical solidity of Alpha Beta. I would suggest that any poster that thinks there is a better way to search, please read up on alpha beta as very few non programmers really understand Alpha Beta with null window searches. There is a good article on this in the latest ICCA journal March 1998 titled " Are there practical alternatives to Alpha Beta?" -- Komputer Korner On April 25, 1998 at 15:24:51, blass uri wrote: > >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.