Author: Jonas Bylund
Date: 03:54:47 08/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 2003 at 06:50:25, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 03, 2003 at 05:45:42, emerson tan wrote: > > >> Of course given enough depth, most chess >>programs can give good evaluation, but there are still a lot of positions that >>are far beyond the search depth of top engines on the most powerful hardware, >>and it is here where chess knowledge is needed. > >Based on my understanding increasing the chess knowledge in Rebel is not going >to help it to understand these positions. > >I understood that >Rebel does the full evaluation at every node except the leaves so I guess that >if it can see something important in the tree before the leaves then it is going >to see it also in the leaves. > >Cases when something important is generated only in the leaves can be detected >with less chess knowledge (maybe even faster) thanks to deeper search. > >In order to change my mind >I need to see a case when knowledge does not help to detect the problem one or 2 >plies earlier but help to detect the problem 10 plies earlier. > >If Rebel with full knowledge say +1 for white at plies 5-10 when default Rebel >say evaluations near +1 for black at plies 5-15 then it is going to be a >convincing evidence that knowledge in Rebel is what you think about when you use >that word. > >Uri But how can we know without trying it? This has the potential to be a very interesting experiment! Jonas
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.