Author: Paulo Cesar Soares
Date: 12:24:04 02/28/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2006 at 14:56:42, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 28, 2006 at 14:19:37, Paulo Cesar Soares wrote: > > ><snipped> >>>I am afraid that I am going to lose at least one game because of the weaknesses >>>of chess programs but generally they are more productive than counter productive >>>and I believe that I could score less without trusting them and only using them >>>for blunder check. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I believe that there are cases in that two or until more moves should be >>analyzed with depth, that suggests that little times I believe in the analysis >>of the computer. > >I do not understand part of this sentence. > >I agree that more than one move should be analyzed and a big part of the >computer analysis that I do is in 2 option mode or 3 option mode. > >I do not understand >"that suggests that little times I believe in the analysis >of the computer". > >Of course with more time you can analyze bigger trees but when there is a >sequence of 2 moves that are not suggested by computers as first choice then it >is natural not to give long analysis for what happens after them and in one of >the game my opponent did exactly that. > >Uri "that suggests that little times I believe in the analysis of the computer", means that I don´t believe in computers in one option move analysis mode in depth analysis. I place the program initially in 2 or 3 positions, as you, but that can change in agreement with the evaluation that it gives. For some positions I can decrease, and for other, to increase the number of moves. If I have time to analyze the positions, I sometimes analyze more than three moves forcing the computer to play the moves, and then I have a large tree. Paulo Soares
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.