Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 00:35:54 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 14:53:21, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>On October 13, 2003 at 14:19:14, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On October 13, 2003 at 13:09:03, Charles Roberson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You make the statement that Diep is a positional engine and you chose it based
>>>on that. So, why did you run G/5 matches? At G/5 tactics and search depth
>>>is crucial.
>>
>>
>>
>>I would like to bring to your attention that tactics and search depth are
>>crucial at any time controls in chess.
>>
>>Showing dimishing returns from increased search depth is so difficult that in
>>practice there is little difference between blitz and long time controls.
>>
>>If engine A gets a beating at blitz, expect it to get the same beating if you
>>repeat the match with long time controls.
>
>Generally that's true, but not always. Falcon using checks in quiescence and a
>large set of extensions turns into a tactical monster, but the worsened
>branching factor makes the tactical strength less significant in longer time
>controls.
>
>The version with all the extensions and checks in quiescence decisively
>outplayed Tiger in blitz time control (5 minute per game on my PIII/733MHz),
>while it got demolished in 1 hour per game time control...
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
If this is true, why don't you disable the "extensions and check in quiescence"
stuff when you are not playing in blitz?
Run in circles like this for a while and some day you will go back at looking
for the right thing that works at any time controls.
Christophe
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.