Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:08:44 09/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2002 at 13:05:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On September 16, 2002 at 11:43:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>Diep never considers taking on d5 here. It says Rfd1 white up 0.117 >>after 10 minutes of search still. > >You must not answer me directly but perhaps you could comment on the question at >any appropriate occasion. What would you say if you, as always participating in >tournaments, observed such a game against Shredder who then played Nxd5. But >your Diep and also Crafty BTW do NEVER even consider Nxd5 but play Rd1. Would >you say that this is a clear example of a cook against SHredder in special? I >ask because I'm not so familiar with all such tricks being known to the >participants. Not long ago another operator of Rebel was proud to use other >tricks, allowed tricks as he said, against Shredder. Are such tricks part of the >tournament practice? And if yes, would you say that in _testings_ such cooks >should be left out? Or is the golden rule the stupid "data is data, no matter >where or how from"? > >Rolf Tueschen I would not say that. For reasons I have given _many_ times. There are two opportunities for variability in a chess program. Parallel search is the best known example, but it is not the _only_ one. If the opponent takes more or less time to move, you get more or less time to "ponder". This pre-loads the hash table with information that may (or may not) change the search result. I've seen more than one or two non-reproducible moves. With position learning further compounding this, whether crafty will or won't play the move is itself open to error...
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.