Author: William Penn
Date: 09:57:47 12/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2005 at 12:09:35, Ed Murak wrote: >On December 09, 2005 at 11:50:42, William Penn wrote: > >>Rybka's analysis is fairly short to begin with, compared to most other engines. > >This is Rybka *B*E*T*A*. > >Also, it is primarily a "playing" engine, not an analysis one. There is a big >difference. > >>23.01 634:58 +1.24 32.h4 Qf8 33.hxg5 (2.860.235.585) 76 > >You do not give the position so I can't comment too much on this truncation. >There is probably a good reason for it. But for most chess positions, the long >PV analysis sequence given is worthless after the first few ply anyway. > >Reflect on- > >"I think one move ahead - but it is always the best move!" >- possibly Charles Jaffe, as reported by Horowitz in All About Chess and maybe >the same thing but a bit differently in How To Think Ahead In Chess. > >"How many moves ahead do you calculate variations?" >"Only one. But this move has to be good" >- Richard Reti, as reported by Shashin in Attacking the Queenside. > >One ahead is all that is ever needed. Hi Ed, I, and many others, are interested in longer analysis. We don't play chess at the fast time controls. Many of us are correspondence players who analyze each position overnight or longer. We seek the truth in chess positions, the best move, regardless of how long it takes! We don't depend on computers to make the best move. They are only a tool, an assistant. The final judgement is ours - a human judgement. To make the best judgement, we need the best and longest analysis possible. Some engines are better at this than others. Obviously Rybka is not very useful for long analysis - at this point. It would be wonderful if this improvement could be made in the full release version, or a later patch, but I haven't heard anything yet in that regard. WP
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.