Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 00:46:40 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 14:56:57, Gerd Isenberg 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>Christophe,
>
>couldn't it be, that engines have some odd/even sympathy/antipathy?
>If the characteristic line of this property is to be out of phase between two
>programs, i can imagine that one is a better blitzer but the other the better
>medium time player.
I did not say that it is impossible to build very unbalanced chess programs.
>And what about fast against slow with "more" or "better" knowledge. At blitz
>time control the the linear speedup (fast/slow) may be more important. But due
>to superior branching factor at sime time the "better" knowledge pays off and
>the match tilts.
* Superior branching factor can be achieved even with a high NPS.
* fast/slow vs dumb/knowledged is an outdated conception. Fast does not mean
dumb and slow does not mean knowledged. It is an overly simplistic view of the
problem that should be definitely forgotten.
Christophe
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.