Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:08:16 01/30/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2006 at 11:34:22, chandler yergin wrote: >On January 30, 2006 at 11:24:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 30, 2006 at 10:29:39, chandler yergin wrote: >> >>>On January 30, 2006 at 10:18:03, K. Burcham wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [D] 2Q5/1p2kb2/1q3p1P/2p2P2/3pP3/4b2R/8/3B3K b - - 0 1 >>> >>>New game, >>>[D]2Q5/1p2kb2/1q3p1P/2p2P2/3pP3/4b2R/8/3B3K b - - 0 1 >>> >>>Analysis by Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit: >>> >>>1...Qb5 2.Qc7+ >>>= (0.00) Depth: 12 00:00:16 637kN >>>(, 30.01.2006) >>> >>>How much time did Rybka have to make it's move in the game? >> >> >>It doesn't matter. His analysis shows that the scores for the depths were >>different for the same ply. This is commonly caused by transposition table >>scores being re-used. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. >>Sometimes it will produce a worse result, but more often it produces a _better_ >>result. Just like sometimes searching deeper will cause a program to play a >>worse move, although in general going deeper produces stronger moves. >> >>His point was that comparing scores ply for ply shows a difference, which it >>did. >My Point... >"Rybka played Qb4 in the game, instead of the safer Qb5." >In the game! It played the best move found at the time it had to move. >I believe that Hyatt shouted that to me more than once. >;) >Chan Can you see the forest in spite of all those trees??? Look at his post. He posted analysis with clean hash and with dirty hash, and the results were different. He asked "is this a bug"? Had nothing to do with how quickly it had to move, just that the clean/dirty hash results were _different_...
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.