Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:24:12 12/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2003 at 09:04:44, Tord Romstad wrote:
>On December 28, 2003 at 22:18:04, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>
>>In my personal opinion: The time of such static tricks has passed. When people
>>ran on a 386 and struggled to get 5 ply, extensions && pruning were critical.
>>Top programs nowadays get 14 ply. The simple fact of the matter is that
>>computers are almost perfect tactically. More depth now is purely for
>>positional benefit. Right now I'm trying to _reduce_ my extensions, not add
>>more :)
>
>By proceeding in the same direction, you will start adding reductions. :-)
>
>I disagree that computers are almost perfect tactically. In the comp-comp games
>I see,
>a high percentage of the games are decided by a tactical mistake by one of the
>engines.
>You may be right that the main importance of more depth is stronger positional
>play,
>but I don't see this as a reason to avoid using knowledge in the search. By
>pruning or
>reducing anti-positional moves with no tactical potential, you will search
>deeper positionally
>*and* tactically.
I agree.
>
>You also once again make the mistake of believeing that everybody is only
>interested
>in making their engines play well on super-fast hardware. Programming a chess
>engine
>that plays well on a fast, modern PC is so easy that it is almost boring.
The question is what do you mean by play well.
You can define play well as being better than Crafty on the same fast hardware
and in this case I do not see that the task is so easy.
In my
>opinion, it
>is much more interesting to invent techniques which do not require extreme speed
>of
>computation in order to work.
>
>>Thorsten and Ed have both said that Rebel plays better with the reductions off.
>>The only engine on ICC that uses his reductions is Chompster, and I've seen
>>chompster make errors on a 10 ply search that Zappa catches with a 6 ply search.
>
>When you start a sentence with "The only engine on ICC that uses ...", the
>statement will
>almost always be wrong, no matter how you complete it. Gothmog ("GothmogX" on
>ICC)
>doesn't use exactly the same reductions as Rebel, but it does many similar and
>often more
>aggressive reductions (for instance, I have no upper limit for the number of
>reductions in a
>single path).
Same for me.
I use reductions and I have no upper limit for the number of reductios in a
single path.
I'm sure you'll be able to find positions where Gothmog makes
>errors in a 10
>ply search which Zappa catches with a 6 ply search, but I also think it is
>possible to find
>positions where the opposite happens.
>
>Tord
I am almost sure that with your check and threat mate extensions it is possible
to find positions where the opposite happens.
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.