Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 08:46:44 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.. > I understand the idea you are mentioning. However, the 20 ply search depth _does_ mean _a lot_ when they are not doing any effective forward pruning. It means they are wasting a lot of time searching crap in those 20 plys. > > >> >>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 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.