Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 12:34:59 06/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2004 at 15:25:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 28, 2004 at 14:20:29, Joachim Rang wrote: > >>On June 28, 2004 at 12:43:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 28, 2004 at 12:37:42, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 28, 2004 at 08:54:00, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>settings, and then N games with the new settings. I am only really interested >>>>>in longer timecontrols: 20 min + on an Athlon 2.0G or so (70 min on P-650, etc), >>>> >>>> >>>>Why long time controls? I thought you could test evaluation with shorter time >>>>controls, search needed longer (or varied) time controls. Am I out in left >>>>field? >>>> >>>>Dan H. >>> >>> >>>My personal belief is that longer controls are better. Short games rely heavily >>>on the search, and leaves a better chance for random luck to influence the >>>outcome. Deeper searches tend to make fewer tactical mistakes, leaving the >>>outcome to the quality of the evaluation.... >> >>I don't think so, the randomness of tactical shots which is certainly present in >>short time controls will be distributed according to the strength of the search >>_and_ evaluation of the engines. I see no reason to believe that on shorter time >>controls _random_ luch should play a significant role. >> >>regards Joachim > > >By definition, "tactics" has nothing to do with "evaluation". Tactics is >discovered by the search. Shallow searches overlook too much... I agree, but if a program has a good mobility evaluation and/or a good passer estimate it will place its pieces and push its passers to the squares where it is more likely to find tactics even with shallow search. regards Joachim
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.