Author: Paulo Soares
Date: 00:20:05 07/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 30, 1999 at 07:08:14, Laurence Chen wrote: >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 Laurence, you are rigth about the best move,it's plus a good reason so that the analyses are made of this way. 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.