Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:47:43 12/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 1999 at 19:56:04, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On December 08, 1999 at 18:28:26, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On December 08, 1999 at 17:16:28, Luis E. Alvarado wrote: >> >>>I agree with you 100%. Humans tend to be far more inconsistent than computers. >> >>You might be surprised. Computers will play a real stinker move some times. >>Could be an unknown hash collision. Could be a bad opening book entry. Could >>be a program bug or just an inferior algorithmic decision. But for whatever >>reason, computers screw up now and again, in a big way. > >I have never seen evidence of a hash collision causing a game to be lost. I >have seen people suggest this as a reason for losing when a particularly bad >clunker is made, but this suggestion is always made before investigation and >never after. i drawn endgames with my draughtsprogram because of it, but i was using not enough bits to store it. i stored only 32 bits and indexed it with 22 bits or something. that's 52 bits from which a few bits get lost if you do more probes. so let's say effectively around 48 bits. at 200k nodes a second you get some real problems then. >In college I used to do a lot of programming in a large open area full of a >bunch of crazy people, on a minicomputer that we all shared. I noticed that >whenever one particular guy had a bug, he would tell us all to save our work, >because he believed that the mini was behaving strangely and was about to crash. > >This is the same sort of deal I think. > >Most bad moves are produced as a result of the program working as designed, and >responsibility for this falls on the shoulders of the programmer. > >bruce
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.