Author: Yakov Konoval
Date: 01:17:23 01/16/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2006 at 18:03:12, GuyHaworth wrote: > >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 I fully agree with Mr. GuyHaworth. And I have 2 small notes: 1. Some other factors are important for EGT's size, not only the metric. 2. The time of generation EGTs in DTM-metric isn't much longer, than for DTZ-metric, but I would say "What are benefits of DTM metrics" :-) Maybe only for chess composers and chess records ? It's not difficult to build EGTs in DTZ50-metric(instead of DTZ-metric), but 50-move rule can be changed by FIDE (even kqrkq has maxDTZ>50). IMHO, DTZ-metric is the most useful metric for chess knowledge. YK
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.