Author: blass uri
Date: 09:34:13 01/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2000 at 08:57:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 02, 2000 at 07:34:43, blass uri wrote: > >>On January 02, 2000 at 06:29:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >> >><snipped> >>>>The definition of knowledge is not clear to me. >>>>I often find that fast searchers have better positional understanding. >>> >>>I am reading here the biggest crap out of history. >> >>I agree that you can get a better positional understanding by doing a slower >>searcher but it does not imply that practically slower searchers have better >>positional understanding. >> >>I saw cases when Hiarcs and fritz "believed" that they were better and fritz was >>right in the evaluation of the position not because it saw 1 or 2 plies more. >> >>Here are some possible reasons why fast searchers have often better positional >>understanding. >> >>1)The programmers of the slow searchers do not use the right parameters in their >>program. >> >>2)The programmers of the slow searchers do not know what to evaluate and they >>evaluate many unimportant things instead of small number of important things. >> >>3)The slow searchers are slow because the programmers of them did not know how >>to do the same thing faster. >> >>Uri > > >I need to add to that that 99.99% of the audience likes to get cheated to. > >Your positions are basically tactical determined, or measure the >agressiveness of a program. That's not how games get won. You don't >win a game because you're more agressive tuned. I disagree. I saw fast searchers win games against slow searchers because of better positional understanding and not because of a tactical move. I remember games when fast searchers were more realistic about evaluation of passed pawns. I also tested slow searchers and fast searchers in some drawn endgames. one example: My chess book says that this position is a draw: 8/6k1/8/5PKP/6R1/8/8/r7 b - - 0 1 I expect that the score of slow searchers is going to be closer to draw if they have better positional understanding but it is not the case. tablebases do not help programs to have the right evaluation and I did not find a single program that did not evaluate this position as more than 2 pawns advantage for white. You can expect slow searchers to have evaluation that is closer to draw but it does not happen. Uri
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.