Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:13:58 07/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 2002 at 15:57:14, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 12, 2002 at 15:51:24, Anson T J wrote: > >> >>>Did you do some research on the sense of the changed moves? What does it mean >>>"changing a move". Do you think that changing a move is a sign for strength? >> >>I understand what you mean, but if an Engine finds exactly the same moves on >>faster hardware as it does on the slower hardware, then it can't be considered >>to be stronger as it would play exactly the same. > >Do you think so? >Ok, let's try a little thought experiment. With the faster the prog will change >in the end. Now, I ask you to explain why _now_ you would assume that the prog >was stronger. Why? Hint: What, if the deeper look caused more confusion or let's >define it as the impression of more clearness. The delusion, I meant. > >Rolf Tueschen I must add a little correction to my own opinion. I always thought that a chess program like REBEL would look at those deep positions through a telescope like tool. Therefore my idea of the deeper look but with new unforeseen difficulties and error sources. But this thought might be wrong. I fear the deep positions are NOT researched. Otherwise we could not explain why a typical variation given by the progs is often enough really idiotic in the end. In other words without any sense. Not to understand with a good program. Could someone take the opportunity and explain this important case for computerchess? Thanks. Rolf Tueschen
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.