Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 14:30:19 08/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1999 at 14:44:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 03, 1999 at 13:44:40, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>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? > > >put it on ICC. That once per year might become once per day. Which will >seem much too high to accept, IMHO. Look at my "easy move" code. It is >_very_ restrictive. And even it has blown out a couple of times that I saw, >and who knows how many more times that I didn't... Let's suppose that you miss 1 ply depth because of the "easy move" code. That 1 ply has less importance at higher depth's and the error rate is decreasing with longer time settings. The optimised solution, IMO, is to increase the restrictions with shorter estimated move time and maybe even turn it off for very short time limits. Even regarding the commercials it's no big deal for the customer to wait a second extra for the move... //Peter
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.