Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:22:13 06/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2004 at 16:09:24, Frank Phillips 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.... > >Two questions for clarification: >Does this presuppose diminishing returns? Not particularly. What it presupposes is that one search might be more likely to make errors on shallow depths than another. IE my simple q-search vs a more sophisticated q-search. While at long time controls my q-search appears to work just fine... >And what quality is the evaluation measuring that is different from the prospect >of future tactics? future tactics != tactics. Tactics are dynamic. Evaluation is static. But if you think about it, who would be happy using just their evaluation with no search, to play games? Why is that? Because the search is set up to handle dynamic things by shuffling pieces, the evaluation does better on positions where everything is static (quiet)... > >I find these tactics versus evaluation debates hard.
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.