Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 04:08:14 07/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 30, 1999 at 03:32:10, Paulo Soares wrote: >On July 29, 1999 at 20:45:33, Alan Grotier wrote: > >> >>300Mhz machine with 64mb ram. >>Fritz 5.32 hash tables set at 42mb. >>Correspondence analysis set for 2hrs per move but have observed that hash tables >>can fill 100% anywhere from 5 to 15 min's depending on the position. >> >>Is there any advantage to be gained by letting the program analyse a position >>for long periods (overnight)une fois the hash tables are completely full? >> >>Salutations:Alan > >When HT is full, the analyses is made in a bigger time, of form >that the program goes to need a great time to arrive many times >doubtful results. If you want to make better analysis of a >position, in less time, I think to be better use the team >man+machine, mainly with chessbase engines. What I understand for >man+machine: > >1. Put the position. > >2. Choose Infinite analyses, and choose the number of moves > that you want to see, pressing the bottons "+" or "-". > This bottons are finded above the counter nodes.In the majority > of the cases I choose N=4. > >3. Leaves the program to analyze the position for approximately > 3 min and choose one move, established in your experience,or one > that is between the N moves, and study the main variants, always > forcing the program to play a move. > >4. Choose another move from the inicial position and make another > study, and thus for ahead, until giving for satisfied with the > examination of the position. > >The great advantage of this method is that when you force the program >to make a move, you gained 1 ply, what it is not little thing in >time. In an analysis of that type, you arrives to gain between 5 and >15 ply(!), depending on the patience that you have to make the >analyses. >The disadvantage is that you can lose a more advantageous variant >if leave the program to analyze the position for some hours. >My experience with this type of analysis is that the advantages >compensate the disadvantages, without doubt. >I think that GMs and his team, use this method to found theoretical >novelties. > >Paulo Soares, from Brazil Hi Paul,I agreed fully with your method. I use it myself. The reason is from my experience is that many times the first choice of the chess engines is not necessary the best move for the position, of course, it depends how complex is the position. I find also that sometimes feeding what you assess to be the correct positional move also helps the engine to assess the position more accurate. How many times you've seen the fourth or other choices are much more superior moves than the PV of the engine? Of course, sometimes, the PV is the only superior move. Like I said it depends on the complexity of the position. Laurence
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.