Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:26:41 11/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2001 at 01:11:52, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 26, 2001 at 22:58:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 26, 2001 at 19:34:48, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On November 26, 2001 at 15:12:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>If it were one move, you would be right. But it typically isn't. It is >>>>_many_ moves. Say 10 moves or 20 plies. And the score doesn't get backed up >>>>the the _real_ problem move at all... >>> >>>Ah, here's where we fundamentally disagree. Do you have any evidence that >>>"typically" mistakes can only be found with 20+ plies of search? 20 sounds to me >>>like a number that was pulled from somewhere unpleasant. >>> >>>-Tom >> >> >>Try some games. Like the famous Shirov sacrifice, and see where the program >>thinks white goes wrong. Those are the kinds of positions that are important >>to the discussion. If the problem is only detected one move late, that can >>be fixed by 10x more search time. It is the ones that are much deeper that >>cause the problems... > >It may be interesting to give yace some hours per move and let it analyze when >it goes backward. > >I believe that it has a chance to find the real mistake in these conditions even >in that game. > >There are also cases when there is a long forced line also from computer point >of view[it is the case in part of the nolot positions(for example nolot number >2) and in part of the studies] > >Uri Have it analyze _any_ game where there is a long-term kingside attack. It will continually suggest different moves at various points in the game, yet those moves won't change a thing. Information passed backward up a tree is a tiny percentage of the information needed to _really_ understand what is happening. If you like answers with a lot of serendipity, you got it. :)
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.