Author: Andrew Wagner
Date: 10:26:09 08/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2004 at 06:44:12, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 18, 2004 at 23:23:14, Andrew Wagner wrote: > >>On August 18, 2004 at 18:53:23, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 18, 2004 at 16:59:32, Jonas Bylund wrote: >>> >>>>Let's say that someone were to cramp as much knowledge in to his/her program >>>>with the sole purpose of making it stronger for _really_ long analysis/play, >>>>thus not caring for the loss of speed, would this actually make the program >>>>stronger for _really_ long games/analysis? >>> >>>It may make the program weaker because the program may have a lot of new bugs >>>thanks for the new knowledge. >>> >>>> >>>>I have a feeling that most programs are tuned and optimized for standard, rapid >>>>and blitz play, not for 1 month games :) >>>> >>>>My point is that if there is indeed an increase in strenght if you to some >>>>reasonable extend discard the speed vs. knowledge aspect, couldn't someone make >>>>a long analysis version of their engine along with their normal engine? >>> >>>I do not think that the problem is a problem of speed. >>>The main problem is that you think that programmmers know to give their programs >>>productive knowledge and the only problem is that their program is going to >>>become slower if they implement it. >>> >>>This is not the only problem and in a lot of cases the main problem is to know >>>if some knowledge is productive and to implement things without bugs. >>> >>>Programmers have enough problems to find if a new version is better in standard >>>games and if they try to do their best for that purpose they have not time for >>>developing a special version that is better for long analysis. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I don't understand this response at all. The same could be argued about any new >>feature to a chess engine -- "Null-move pruning is a bad idea because it could >>introduce bugs and is not clear how to best implement it." The point is that >>because of diminishing returns, the number reached by a knowledge-heavy engine >>will probably not differ from that of a more classical engine if they both >>search for a month, right? So I would have to give the advantage to the >>knowledge-based engine, but that's just me. > >I do not understand your response. >I do not see what deminishing returns has to do with the problem. Diminishing returns is important because eventually both engines will reach a point where to get to another ply will take many months of searching. Having each engine search for a month will cause that to happen each move. Therefore, if they're both searching to the same ply, the engine with more chess knowledge should, theoretically, win. > >The point is that you can test something for blitz or standard time control >games but you cannot test something for analysis of one month. > Well, if you test it with fixed depth games, the engine with better knowledge should win. That is how you figure out what "better knowledge" is. >Null move is supposed to work at blitz so it is possible to test it. >You do not have time to test something seriously for correspondnece games. > >Uri
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.