Author: pavel
Date: 15:31:08 04/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 21, 2002 at 18:26:22, Mike S. wrote: >On April 21, 2002 at 18:15:06, pavel wrote: > >>(...) > >>If a program doesnt know "nada" about a position, deeper search wont do "nada". >>:) > >Not true IMO. I think that in many cases, if there is "something" in a position, >it should be visible much more clearly within a reasonable number of plies. >There have always been examples where depth could replace knowledge. And if not, >then "something" was probably just a Fata Morgana most often. > >There will always be exceptions. > >Some people say, (more) knowledge is just necessary because programs can't reach >the depths to evaluate correctly (with lesser knowledge). > >Regards, >M.Scheidl The "Nolot" positions are the best examples out there (http://www.seanet.com/~brucemo/nolot/nolot.htm) I dont see myself letting a program search for few days to "understand" a position, that he will play in tournament time control. Regards, pavs
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.