Author: blass uri
Date: 06:49:44 08/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1999 at 09:14:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 03, 1999 at 05:25:52, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>Posted by leonid on August 02, 1999 at 21:23:37: >>> >>>>IMHO low-brain fast-searches like DB vs Kasparov have proved it is better to >>>>forget about trouble makers and exceptions and just go for the brute force >>>>approach. Fast and dumb rules. Forget about exceptions they are waste of >>>>time. >>>>You spend all clock cycles and programmer time on worrying about >>>>exceptions and then you are full of bugs. >>>> >>>>Ciao >>>> >>>>Mark >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>And because of today's fast computers the exceptions fade away as for >>>>>example the Cray Blitz position is seen by Rebel in 0.5 second. >>>>> >>>>>Ed Schroder >>> >>>I really agree with what was said obove. Now on very quick computers Rebel >>>10 can see by "brute force" 6 plys ahead in just one or two seconds. Some >>>less superficial revision of the moves but with "fixed horizon" can lead up >>>to 10 or even 12 plys deep. This way of searching the move is best >>>that some other method that care too much about exceptions. Exceptions >>>that take that much space to care about and can produce anyway very >>>suspicious result. >>> >>>Leonid. >> >>I do not agree with was has been said above except what has been said >>by myself of course :-) >> >>If you have a commercial program and playing a 40/2:00 game for instance >>you can not afford to think 6 minutes (or worse) on a simple recapture as >>people are going to laugh on the stupidness of the silicon. >> >>So you are forced to come up with some intelligent software that handles >>forced moves. This means you are going to have to deal with all the >>exceptions. No choice. >> >>Ed Schroder > > >That is debatable... I think your reasoning is a dead match for the reasons >that Slate/Atkin used for their famous "that was easy" idea in chess 4.x... >they didn't like sitting for N minutes on an obvious recapture. Many of us >didn't want to look silly like that. And often (or probably all of the time >in fact) the fix was actually worse than the "problem". But we didn't realize >this until we got burned once... The fact that you lost one game because of this is not a proof that the fix is worse than the problem because it is hard to tell how many games you lost because of the problem. It is possible that saving time help you to find slightly better move later in the game and it is not easy to know if the slightly better move gives you a better result or does not give you a better result. Uri
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.