Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 13:24:40 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? >And what quality is the evaluation measuring that is different from the prospect >of future tactics? > >I find these tactics versus evaluation debates hard. It makes sense that the longer time control is going to reduce the tactical "noise" that might otherwise skew the results. For instance, a search advantage of 20% by one program is going to be more pronounced at shallower blitz depths than at deeper depths of standard time controls, because the greater the depth it will take more than 20% advantage to maintain a lead in plies searched. Matt
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.