Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 08:32:12 07/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2002 at 10:25:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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.. Have you ever examined the tree, statisticly I mean? How many lines get pruned, how many extended, at what depths does this happen, at what depth do you the most hashtable hits, etc.? I was thinking about picturing this in a histogram, so I would have an idea of the kind of distribution an X ply search makes. I guess it would take some bell shaped form, with few extended far and most ending around ply X. Are there any papers on this? -S.
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.