Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 15:50:27 01/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 1999 at 17:31:15, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >I contacted a technical advisor from Saitek in Hong Kong who assured me that >Brute Force was superior to Selective Search. His reason was that Brute Force >searches more extensively and therefore minimizes the risk of an occasional >oversight. Apparently the Selective Search is quicker but not as thorough. So, >from this I would assume that IM Larry Feldman was wrong or misinformed. It is a >shame that he has not responded to my query. However, it does appear he was not >correct in what was stated in his review. Hi Melvin: Very amazinbg that a man from a company that failed to match Lang programs due to be stucked with the non selective approach by the Spracklen team now say that non selective technique is the better one. Yes, less risk of oversighting, BUT only inside a narrowed horizon. On the contrary, brute force by neccesity involves shorsightedness for long shots, strategical problems where you cannot see if you do not see 12 plys or more. Every current top program is more or less selective and I cannot imagine a better proof of the superiority of the technique. Nevertheless, maybe we are talking in a somewhat too wide manner as much there are many variations of selective technique according of how much selective they are and how they do so. Bob Hyatt could say something a lot more substantive about this controversy. Greetings from Chile, that has nothing to do with Ecuador. Fernando
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.