Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:31:34 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... > >then the question is, which is worse... to take forever on an obvious more or >get burned by playing an 'obvious' move that really isn't? That's an easy choice, I take my chances. As already said the problem simply will fade every year due to faster hardware. These days it is a big exception if the easy-move algorithm fails. Ed Schroder
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.