Author: Johan de Koning
Date: 23:28:30 08/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 15, 2003 at 05:17:09, Sune Fischer wrote: [snipped wrong subthread] >I understand you point, but I think the price is too high. > >Clearing TTs makes the engine, IMO, significantly weaker at short time controls. >It is simply too expensive to throw away the little information the engine has >collected, and the fraction of a second the clearing itself takes is no small >handicap (guess there are tricks to speed this up? :). Time control is not an issue here since. >It also makes backwards (=retograde?) analysis impossible, and as Gian-Carlo >mentioned smp is not possible to do in a determanistic manner. Valid points. But IMHO not a good reason to always behave randomly. >I have a such a determanism on/off variable, simply a flag the user can edit to >ask for clearing of TTs and killers etc. before every move. >This is half way debug mode in my opinion though. > >Lastly, I think the engine should be more than just a dumb analysis tool. >Why shouldn't the engine change it's style if it's opponent is very low rated or >has very little time left on the clock? >What about learning so the engine never makes the same mistake twice? Bells and whistles are fine, as long as you can control them. >Those are (non-determanistic) factors that humans consider, so why shouldn't we >attempt to mimic these ideas, some of them might be powerful indeed! :) That's what 1950s AI (p)research was about. :-) ... Johan
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.