Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:19:53 06/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2004 at 12:57:11, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: >On June 15, 2004 at 19:09:52, Dann Corbit wrote: > >[snip] >>One possible work-around is to analyze test problems to a very high depth or a >>very long time span (say depth = 16 plies or time = 1 hour) for problems that >>should be resolved in a fairly short time (e.g. 10 minutes or less). If we run >>a dozen of the strongest programs against the problem sets at a very long time >>span or a very deep depth (or both) then we can be reasonably sure that there >>are no "obvious" answers at shallower depths. And if one does turn up, then we >>can alter the test set. Many problems in WAC were resolved by a method similar >>to this. >> > >They alsc shoud be run for a very long time with a second-best move option to >ensure the solution is significantly better than any alternative. And sometimes it is the worst looking move that really turns out best. Some of the great games of all time have moves like that.
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.