Author: Matthew White
Date: 17:42:17 09/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 2003 at 13:26:47, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 12, 2003 at 13:06:42, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>Ah Ha! Another example of apples versus oranges! : ) > >Again, not at all. You are assuming engine behaviour and comparative >strength is miracolously completely different in playing vs analysis. >This is false. > >Running in analysis mode is the same as playing a very very slow game, >as far as the engine is concerned. There's nothing significantly different >about the two internally. > >>In my case, I always allow the engine to reach a "reasonable" search depth. On >>the other hand, a person playing against his chess program would never do that. > >What is reasonable? Why would a reasonable depth magically make things >different for the sake of this discussion? > >>Don't be fooled by SSDF results. SSDF could care less about the analysis uses >>of the chess programs. They ONLY measure playing strength in timed >>competitions. > >There is a direct and very strong correlation between analysis strength >and SSDF performance. > >-- >GCP The problem with that statement is that it assumes that engines win for the same reason. In general, the engines that I use for analysis are those with a highly developed positional understanding. If I make a positional mistake, an engine that is highly tactical will, more often than not, fail to see the mistake. That doesn't mean that the engine won't win a great number of games, it just means that it doesn't analyze the way I'd like my games to be analyzed...
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.