Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 00:49:38 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 15:44:30, Joachim Rang 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
>
>
>Hi Chrisotphe,
>
>this interesting statement was many times repeated from you, but in the meantime
>a lot of tests have shown, that there are certain programs (not all) which give
>different results at short and long games. Hiarcs i.E. is better at short
>timecontrols, for Rebel the contrary is true.
I do not think that your examples are true.
>I think one could easily tune an engine to short or long time controls (not that
>this is necessarily a good idea, but it is possible and therefore you can not a
>priori know if y program plays wiht equal relative strenght at all time
>controls).
It is possible, if you try hard enough, to build a very unbalanced chess
program.
But it is relatively easy to get rid of this problem. So I don't see why someone
would design on purpose a program that would be weak at blitz and strong at long
time controls.
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.