Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:44:40 08/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1999 at 13:14:37, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >If I understand Ed properly, he wrote "Customers do not like when the program >for several minutes thinks on the obvious move. And they don't like it so much, >that I have to solve that problem somwhow, even if solution is not 100% correct >and sometimes causes bad play". > >Eugene That was indeed the starting point some 10 years ago when I made a first implementation of the easy-move algorithm. In the beginning the error rate was quite high (6502 5Mhz) but people were satisfied. These days the easy-move algorithm is a lot better plus the fast hardware of today guarantees no single error anymore. Well... maybe one a year? Rebel depending on the position divides its time by 2,4 or 8. Ed Schroder >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?
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.