Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 08:42:42 06/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2004 at 18:29:43, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >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 Ditto my 32 man endgame table. Sadly, in reality we are left to struggle with mix and matching imperfect search, imperfect evaluation and <32 man egtbs. But that is the fun !
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.