Author: Steve Coladonato
Date: 16:13:52 06/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
Maria, Yes, I have Chess Tiger (Chess Assistant) and Shredder (Shredder 6). However, I have all but gotten rid of Windows and switched over to SCID and Crafty on Linux. I still have a couple of old Oracle Power Objects programs to convert to JDeveloper or Oracle Forms and then it's good-bye Windows and I gain another 10G of disk for Linux. Steve On June 10, 2002 at 11:38:50, maria clara benedicto wrote: >yes. consistency is kool. looks better than hit-&-miss. > >even free-rebel use forward style analysis. > >but if you have chess tiger, shredder, why not use it too? > >let loose - open mind. > >meaning. compare forward-backward analysis of your games. > >you get diffrent view about your game. improve your game. > >regards > >maria > >On June 10, 2002 at 10:58:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 10, 2002 at 08:30:01, Steve Coladonato wrote: >> >>>Is there any significance in the quality of the analysis that is produced when a >>>program (Crafty) performs its analysis forward, i.e. starting at move 1, through >>>the game vs a program(s) (Chess Tiger, Shredder) that perform analysis backward, >>>i.e. starting at the last move. > >> >>Here is the "thinking" about going backward: >> >>as you back up thru the game, scores from later searches are stored in the >>hash table and they propagate back up the game as a result, letting the program >>often see some tactical flaw earlier in the game (because it knows about the >>tactical problems that occur later in the game first). >> >>I don't like it. And here is the "why"... >> >>When you go thru a game in the forward direction, the program will spot any >>tactical oversight its search is capable of finding. When it complains that >>you made a worse move than necessary, this will be based on its search, and it >>will be repeatable across games. >> >>When you go backward, you hope that the important tree search results stick >>around long enough to be used a few moves back in the game, giving you better >>scores. But this is based on a lot of serendipity (luck). If key table >>entries survive, you get better analysis. If they don't, you don't. This >>means that the "analysis" by the engine has a strong luck component in how >>accurate it is. >> >>I personally prefer "consistency" to "spotty genius-like" analysis because >>I want the same quality of analysis for each of my games... It makes it easier >>to understand what the machine sees. >> >>Remember that the computer will produce some analysis at the point in the game >>where it sees the score drop. Going forward, it will happen at about the >>same "depth" each time. Going backward, it will vary significantly...
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.