Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:20:48 06/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2002 at 23:58:46, Christophe Theron wrote: >On June 13, 2002 at 09:13:43, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: > >>On June 13, 2002 at 06:00:13, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>Hiarcs 8 was NOT made for slow computer such as an AMD 450 Mhz as the SSDF >>>decided to test it against Nimzo 8. >> >>What, exactly, causes this problem? >> >>Do other chess engines have this same problem too? >> >> >>Bob D. > > > >The problem is that the problem described above does not exist. > > > > Christophe Here we disagree significantly. One trivial case... Take a program that uses null-move R=2 or 3, and run it on a very slow machine. Then on a very fast machine. The slow machine will make significant blunders because the R=2 or R=3 depth reduction will be a killer. But as the depth increases, the tactical oversights go away and the null-move program benefits more from the extra speed than what you might see from a non-null-move program. I watched this happen personally. I almost gave up on R=2 for that very reason, until suddenly the P6/200 came along and bumped the depth up enough so that suddenly the R=2 or R=3 didn't cause tactical blunders nearly as often. That is but _one_ example. Other obvious cases come to mind. At a specific depth, you need some tactical evaluation to avoid blunders. IE if you can't search 2 plies, you need to evaluate forks statically. But as the depth increases, suddenly the search handles this and doing it in the eval simply slows the program down. But not doing it in the eval will kill it on slow hardware. The list goes on and on...
This page took 0.01 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.