Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 07:51:59 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2003 at 09:41:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 14, 2003 at 07:43:05, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>This problem only exists if you are not able to analyze the weaknesses >>that your engine has well. >> >>Conversely, an engine that is stronger at long time controls today will >>be stronger in rapid next year and stronger in blitz in 2 years. >> >>Whereas an engine that is a good blitzer will just get weaker. >> >>-- >>GCP > > >This is simply not true. One example. Try a null-move R=2 program at >_very_ fast time controls against a program like the king or Hiarcs that >doesn't seem to use that. At very shallow depths, R=2 causes lots of >spectacular search failures by hiding simple tactics. At deeper depths >this effect is reduced. There are plenty of examples of heuristics that >work well at shallow depths but fail at deeper depths. There are also >plenty of examples of heuristics that fail at shallow depths but which >work well at deep depths. > >Parallel search efficiency comes to mind. How efficient are you are 3 plies? >13 plies? > >The idea is well-known. Uh, where exactly are you disagreeing with me? -- GCP
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.