Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:39:29 04/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 01, 2000 at 04:46:59, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >On March 31, 2000 at 23:17:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 31, 2000 at 12:53:43, Stephen Ham wrote: >> >>>Dear Readers, >>> >>>I know many of you are actively following my ongoing match games versus Fritz 6a >>>and Nimzo 7.32. For those of you not familiar with the event, please visit: >>> >>>http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/index.htm >>> >>>Anyway, a frequent poster here (name is withheld) wrote to Mr. Campbell stating >>>that since the chess engines are displaying their top 3 choices, they are being >>>weakened "a lot". No explanation was given for that claim. >>> >>>Would somebody here please provide a detailed explanation regarding whether this >>>claim is correct and why? >> >> >>It depends on how they compute these variations. Done correctly, it is >>_horribly_ inefficient. If you watch a normal search, the first move will >>usually take over 50% of the total time. The remaining N-1 moves take the >>remaining 50% of the time. If you have it display two 'best'moves, you >>increase the total search time by roughly 50%. The first move takes the >>same time as before. The second move also takes the same time as before, >>and the final N-2 moves take just a tad less than before. Net loss is >>ugly. If you have it display the best 3 moves, you slow it down by exactly >>a factor of two... > >But I think that the '3 best moves' search widened the tree of moves , true or >not true ? That is what I said... it widened it by a factor of 2x, which means you reduce the depth you could have reached by a factor of 2x also... but since this is iterating deeper and deeper, you lose a bunch as each iteration normally takes about 3x (or a bit less) than the previous iteration. Now it is taking 6x.
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.