Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:25:44 07/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2002 at 01:28:07, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >When I read in CCC that the Deep Blue search had an EBF of about 4, my thoughts >were, "Ugh! That means that in about 50 years of the expected hardware >improvements, the PC programs of the day will be able to surpass Deep Blue even >if Deep Blue were to get the commensurate hardware improvements." The problem is that you are making a _classic_ mistake. The EBF has _nothing_ to do with how the two programs will compare. What is important is the _tree_ that both search. If one does a 20 ply search, and the other does a 10 ply search, but they search the same tree, then they play equally tactically. Don't get hung up on a 20 ply search depth (iteration number). It doesn't mean a thing when compared to _other_ programs.. > >The big advantage in EBF of the then current programs is like a juggernaut that >cannot be stopped. That I was not impressed with Deep Blue is an understatement. >Deep Blue was superior...then, but this was *despite* its method of search. Its >hardware made it superior and not its search methods. Its search methods are far from primitive. IE they have been doing singular extensions since the late 1980's. Others started to copy the idea much later. That is but one example. EBF is meaningless. It is possible that a program with an EBF of 30 could still be world champion, and in spite of the fact that it only does _one_ search iteration per move. All it has to do is extend the _right_ moves and not extend the rest...
This page took 0.01 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.