Author: Charles Roberson
Date: 05:50:47 01/05/06
Go up one level in this thread
I beleieve the reason for this not being noticed 20 years earlier in chess, is
that in 1979 the search depths were very small and material with very little
positional knowledge was all you could put in a program.
Today, we can search 12+ ply at tournament conditions. Thus, accurate
positional knowledge is more key than every before.
The program I am working on has years of history performing better at blitz
than at long time controls. If I were prunning too much, it seems that would
show up regardless of the time control. With bigger time controls, one can
search deeeper.
So, I think David S. Nau is correct. Also, his 1979 conclusions that it
doesn't show up in checkers or chess was just an accident of short search
depths. I stated earlier that this could partially explain why Marion Tinsley
could beat a checkers program that could beat everybody but him. Tinsley had an
understanding (position evaluator) that was beyond all his opponents including
the checkers program.
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.