Author: John Merlino
Date: 10:54:54 07/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 2002 at 10:25:45, Coxwell Strange wrote: > Of course you are correct about that position, it is an endgame position >where cm8k has already been admittedly superior. Using what i call a "benchmark" >personality (max hash and max selectivity) for each program, my puter gave a ply >10 d4 from cm55 in 23 seconds, and cm8k did it at 7 ply in 3 ! seconds (very >strong indeed). Using the same setups in both programs, to complete a 14 ply >search in response to d4 cm55 took 15:48, and cm8k took 26:01. This is >consistant with the other midgame positions tested. > But "silly" ? The game is often won in the opening and midgame, long before >cm8k can come into its own. Since your customers "silly" concerns are >erronerous and inconsequential, the subject shall not be brought again. How is this an endgame position, when only one Knight and one Pawn each is off the board? I used YOUR (perfectly reasonable) requirement of at least 30 points of material for each side. Also, there is very little correlation between "time to depth" and strength, as others here have posted. The difference in time to depth 14 that you mention above is due to more KNOWLEDGE built into the evaluation, as opposed to your conclusion that slower=weaker. You are correct in saying "the game is often won in the opening and midgame". But to say that The King is weak(er) in those phases of the game simply because it takes longer to reach depth N is completely untrue. jm
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.