Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:27:49 08/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1999 at 09:49:44, blass uri wrote: > >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 that was one game that went from potential draw to dead lost due to our 'that was easy' approach. I initially did this same approach in Crafty, but saw it lose enough games on ICC that I greatly restricted it to the point where it is now. And I haven't seen the current approach lost any games, although the possibility is admittedly still present... But it definitely lost plenty of games on ICC before I got rid of it.
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.