Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 22:49:56 02/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2000 at 01:38:02, Vincent Vega wrote: >On February 11, 2000 at 20:32:31, Albert Silver wrote: > >>It's still very complicated even where computers are concerned. I am presuming >>this is a project of your own as you did not mention any names of third parties >>doing the analysis, in which case I'd like to ask how these conclusions will be >>reached. > >No, I read it right here, maybe about a month ago. Sorry, I don't remember >who's doing it, maybe somebody else does. I hope the results will be posted >here or published. > >>Add an 11th ply to a program that knows nothing and >>it's importance will be far greater to it than to a program that has a very >> large evaluation function. > >Are you sure? I'm not. In fact I've seen arguments that CSTAL gains more with >increased time than fast searchers. Possibly true but not terribly relevant. Amy is a fast searcher. Amy is very weak at blitz, but gets stronger and stronger with increasing time intervals. Can we draw the opposite conclusion that fast searchers get better with longer time intervals? Don't think so. >Yes, there are a lot of complications and I could be wrong. But I think this >experiment could start answering some questions (and posing new ones). Experiments are a good idea. If we get enough evidence, our answers might actually be factual. I'm all for it.
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.