Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 22:02:42 08/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2001 at 15:57:28, Uri Blass wrote:
>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
Forget about the extreme cases, we will never get there.
I don't see why a better book would be counter productive at longer time
controls. You should email your theory to Jeroen, Alex and Sandro.
Short of making up an extreme example, I repeat that I do not know of any
improvement that would be productive at a given time control (very fast or very
slow) and would be counter productive on the other end of the scale.
Christophe
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.