Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:57:28 08/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2001 at 13:05:35, Christophe Theron wrote: >On August 31, 2001 at 03:17:23, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On August 31, 2001 at 02:44:52, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>No I just assume better branching factor from my program. >>> >>>Tiger needs less time than Genius to complete each successive iteration, and the >>>effects of this better branching factor shows up more clearly when more >>>iterations (ply depths) are completed. >>> >>>In sports, we would say that Genius has more explosive power (is a good >>>sprinter) but gets tired very quickly. So if the race lasts longer, Tiger does >>>not get tired when Genius is exhausted already. >>> >>>You are not going to see this difference if you let them run only short races. >>> >> >>I don't disagree at all ( the diminishing return remark was supposed to be a >>joke) and everyone can see this effect on current CPUs. The question is at which >>speed this effect really kicks in . >> >>It it a 200 or a 400 meter race ? Or will ChessTiger need a marathon :) ? >> >>I expect ChessTiger will do well in sprints, too btw . >> >>Until the 486 came out Genius was probably still in active development. I assume >>_if_ it was optimized for _any_ speed it was probably tournament time control on >>a 386 or 486 CPU . Genius finds several very clever moves at fast times where >>modern programs probably will rely to get them anyway with search . > > > >It does not make any sense to talk about "optimizing for 386 or 486 tournament >time controls". > >It would take years to achieve a task like this, and while this optimization job >would take place the author would not be able to make any serious change in his >program. > >An author simply tries to make his program stronger, and that's already a task >difficult enough, from the human point of view. > >I do not know of any improvement that would be a blitz improvement only (I mean >an improvement that would only help in blitz and not at longer time controls). >Likewise, I do not know any improvement that would only help at long time >controls. > >"Optimizing for blitz or tournament time controls" is a fantasy in the mind of >many readers of this discussion group, but as many other things I see discussed >here, it does not exist. > > > > Christophe I am sure that there are changes that are productive at long time control but counter productive at short time control. For example simple logic says that a big book may be productive at short time control when a smaller book may be more productive at long time control. In the extreme case at infinite time control the engine can find all the right moves and needs no book 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.