Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 15:29:43 06/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2004 at 16:37:28, Frank Phillips wrote: >On June 28, 2004 at 16:22:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... >> > >Yes I was assuming the same program (search). > >> >>>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)... >> > >Yes, how stupid of me. But again I was wondering about diminishing returns. >(Theoretically, I would take an infinitely fast searcher over any evaluation >function.). I'll pit my perfect evaluation against your infinite search any day :) anthony
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.