Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 01:29:06 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2003 at 03:35:54, Christophe Theron wrote: >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? That's what I am doing :) Trying to find a balance between the extensions and maintaining an acceptable branching factor. > >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 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.