Author: Eduard Nemeth
Date: 09:22:52 04/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2005 at 12:05:52, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >The observations from these games are important. It is obvious, that programs >should use a effective "no progress" rule. For example, when they evaluate >positively form themselves over a LONG sequence of moves, but the eval doesn't >get significantly better, they must consider "unusual" moves which change the >situation dramatically and let expect progress within small depths (as long as >the eval is still positive for the program, like RxNf1 in your example). > >Progs really look stupid in these time losses... > >Steve Correctly. Still further examples will follow, partly still more humorous, as soon as my tooth is again correct, and I possibly still something else settled. (probably next week) German: Richtig. Es werden noch weitere Beispiele folgen, teilweise noch humorvollere, sobald mein Zahn wieder in Ordnung ist, und ich evtl. noch etwas anderes erledigt habe. (Vermutlich nächste Woche)
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.