Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:19:36 02/24/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 2006 at 17:21:51, Tansel Turgut wrote: >I would appreciate your experience and recommendations: > >It looks like Rybka seems to be leading all the programs currently.(in normal >time controls) > >1)I am interested to see what happens on longer time controls (for >correspondence chess) (ie: if a couple hours/move is allowed) > >is there any data on this? There is almost no data on very long time control (slower than 40 moves/2 hrs). >2) Do the leading programs superiority continue, or do some other programs do >better when couple hours of time given for each move? I would guess that the strongest programs are still the top programs at one move per day, but it is only a guess. >3)Mostly I am interested in Hiarcs. It sees alot, but it is very slow and do not >see many plies deep compared to other programs. Programs define what a ply is differently. I would not worry about ply count so much as the quality of the ideas generated. >Can hiarcs (or any other program) it be potentially better than the other >programs if a couple of hours allowed for each move? beacuse , then it could >search much deeper than it normally can under normal time control? ) There can be a difference, of course. A small difference in branching factor will eventually dominate. But a smaller branching factor is not necessarily better if the wrong moves are being examined. It is a complicated question. >best regards, >Tansel Turgut Since you are a correspondence player, I would suggest using 3-4 machines with diffent engines on them. Look at the ideas that they generate and choose the one that you like best (or one of your own). Uri Blass is a correspondence player who likes to examine computer analysis (National champion of Israel, if I recall correctly). I guess that he may be able to give some good advice. Robin Smith is a world class correspondence champion also (2x US champion). Probably, any advice that they can give will be much better than mine. Keep in mind that computers can also give incredibly stupid advice. I remember one example that Robin Smith showed me where the computer put his own rook into an unbreakable box. So look at the pv all the way to the depth reported to see if the idea is really something that you like. Ne var ne yok - benim abi c,em.
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.