Author: GuyHaworth
Date: 15:03:12 01/15/06
Go up one level in this thread
Re the various metrics, the best initial position to take is a 'metric-neutral'
one: understand that
- different metrics provide different information
- no metric has yet delivered 'obviously sensible' moves all the time
- different metrics take different times to compute
- different metrics lead to different-sized EGTs
- no strategy based on metrics alone optimises theoretical value
one has to finesse re the opponent's fallibility with a k-move rule
However, in attempting to produce better and better strategies based on
metric-based information from EGTs, [q.v. a recent paper by Bourzutschky,
Tamplin and Haworth in the J of Theoretical Computer Science], I find that I
always need the DTZ information. This is because, whatever else happens, one
must not give the opponent the opportunity to claim a k-move draw in the current
phase of play. So one can only choose from the moves that do not allow this,
provided there are some.
It happens that the DTZ information gives the most compact EGTs and is quickest
to compute too. That is why it is the metric of choice for Yakov Konoval and
Mark Bourzutschky.
g
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.