Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 12:32:38 09/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2001 at 14:56:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >The last thing is interesting. Still has my curiousity up to see just how >many "errors" are required before the search falls apart. I agree it would be quite interesting. It's not actually so surprising. After all, _all_ our evaluations are 'incorrect' to some extent. We use the tree search to help with this. But the tree search itself can also be pathological. Generally, the closer an evaluation is to the leaves the more 'error' we can sustain. And because of the exponential nature of the tree most of them will be just there! Before getting a serious error at the root you would have to get a serious number of leaf or near-leaf nodes to 'conspire' (the analogy should be obvious...) and give bogus scores. Even if the search falls apart it would still have to do so in a way that actually produces a bad move at the root. Having a bogus score is annoying but won't kill you in games. Putting your queen en prise will. I don't mind generating several collisions per second. Why do so when I generate 100 000 'erronous' evals per second? -- GCP
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.