Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:47:31 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2003 at 17:58:04, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 14, 2003 at 03:54:28, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 14, 2003 at 03:49:38, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>If somebody has a bad data structure so he cannot calculate the functions that >>he needs fast then he may prefer instead of improving the data structure to >>improve the branching factor so the program may earn more from time relative to >>the opponents. >> >>Uri > > > >You do not need to be slow to have a state of the art branching factor. > >Take a very slow program (slow because it spends a lot of time ordering the >moves) and add on top of that two plies of very fast search (not perfectly >ordered, but not too bad either). > >You get a very fast searcher with an excellent branching factor (the last two >plies might not very good in branching factor but you won't notice). > >Being fast is not an excuse for having a bad branching factor. > >Being slow won't give you any advantage in branching factor. > > > > Christophe I do not say that you need to be slow in order to have state of the art branching factor but being fast is also a function of the data structure that you choose. programmers have limited time and if they choose to improve order of moves instead of improving the data structure then they may achieve being 200% faster at slow time control and 50% faster at blitz instead of being 100% faster in both cases. Uri
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.