Author: Will Singleton
Date: 20:51:32 11/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 1999 at 17:45:38, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On November 29, 1999 at 16:48:43, Will Singleton wrote: > >>Well, if it's any consolation, my program rarely gets more than 6 ply in the >>middlegame at blitz time controls. I get killed all the time tactically. >> >>Will > >right. why make all kind of rating graphs and even invent a logarithmic >function? > >Let's get a random value and make a rating graph out of it. Well, that's a good point. I often notice that the outcome of certain matches seems very random-like. And it is troubling. But then I think, well, let's say that you and I improve our search functions to allow 10 ply in blitz. Will we not have similiar results as the 6 ply versions? Experimentation has shown that chess is, or perhaps is, infinitely deep. That is, if you search 14 ply on average, and I search 13, that you will win a certain percentage more games. So the question returns to the fundamental one: can you search faster and deeper than your opponent, while retaining enough positional knowledge to avoid unplayable positions? Or maybe, can you limit your wonderful positional eval enough to allow a deep enough search not to get killed tactically? So keeping track of the progress of these developmental programs merely shows who has been more successful a greater percentage of the time. And perhaps those authors share their methods, and those who are watching take note and learn. And again, the list is fundamentally a blitz list, which may evolve to include std someday. But given the fact that most internet chess is blitz, and taking into account the lack of controls which can adversly affect std ratings to a greater degree than blitz, one has to pause and consider the intent of the whole thing. And so I don't take it too seriously, and just do it for fun. Will
This page took 0.01 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.