Author: Omid David
Date: 11:18:01 07/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 20:10:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 09, 2002 at 19:33:19, Omid David wrote: > >>On July 09, 2002 at 17:53:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 09, 2002 at 17:35:35, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On July 09, 2002 at 17:04:03, Steve Maughan wrote: >>>> >>>>>Russell, >>>>> >>>>>>Is it simply a fast engine that is good at tactics? I can't think of what else >>>>>>it would be. >>>>> >>>>>What you say is the percieved wisdom although there are exceptions such as >>>>>Hiarcs which is good at tactics but not fast. Hopefully Shredder's Blitz win >>>>>will start to erode the myth that it's not good at tactics. >>>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>>> >>>>>Steve >>>> >>>>I suspect that the operator is very important in the blitz tournament. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>Critical is a better word... >> >>I think in a blitz or lightning match, the evaluation function should be very >>light in order to enable the programs to reach a reasonable depth. Unlike the >>depths 10-12 which another ply deeper won't bring tremendous improvement >>(diminishing returns from deeper search), in depths lower than 10 another ply >>deeper is critical, and is more important that some of the detailed positional >>evaluations. > > >Yes, but in 5 minute games, the operator is the critical link. If he wastes >3 seconds a move getting moves to and from the real board, that leaves 2 seconds >for thinking, assuming the game goes no more than 60 moves. Very tight... The current system looks too primitive. Why not use an automated operator, which at each point gets the move from each program, i.e. no waste of time on operators part? I mean an automated interface, something like winboard, etc.
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.