Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 18:44:45 06/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 19:12:18, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On June 18, 2001 at 11:19:41, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>Now you sound exactly like Bob. Noone is disqualifying their program. At the >>time unbeatable. But it *is* possible to compare search model A with search >>model B and conclude that B is better. DB is not a magical black box that we >>know absolutely about. > >If you don't know the exact details your comparisation is going >nowhere. > >The SE is a nice example of this. The SE that Vincent tested is >totally unlike what DB used. It's tuned for a chessprogram like >crafty, not DB. > >I have one that is closer to DB, but Vincent didn't test that of >course. Also, depiste all publications MANY of the details are >totally unsure. SE is VERY complex. And you're not ever going >to get something close to what DB did because they simply left >out way too much details. >I am telling you now that you are never going to get this >comparisation to work. Not unless Hsu fills in the missing >details. Maybe you are right. But until he does (let's pray) I am not convinced that he is the only one that could make SE work by some magical trick. That is: make it work better than skipping >90% nonsense nodes. >>We know they didn't prune. So they could have even been >>stronger. > >Hello? How can you know this? The better your eval is the >more pruning is going to hurt. Hi there! :-) Maybe you can explain this statement, because I don't see it. One thing is for sure, if you ask me, with a lousy eval you get lousy pruning. Best regards, Bas.
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.