Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:51:21 10/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 23:13:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 10, 2002 at 16:37:32, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On October 10, 2002 at 12:03:08, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On October 10, 2002 at 07:05:49, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>> >>>If you use null-move R=3, your minimum software depth for iteration i will be >at least i-3. Does this mean I can say you're searching 9 ply when you report >12 plies of output? >>> >>>They didn't nullmove, so this does not apply. Their minimal depth was >>>their nominal depth. >> >>In Chessmaster, you can sometimes see depths of 1/12 or something. Supposedly, >>the 1 is something akin to the 'minimum software depth', where 12 is the >>'minimum extension depth' (whatever that means). Do you say Chessmaster gets a >>nominal depth of 1 ply in that case? >> >>Here is an example lifted from another thread: >> >>Time Depth Score Positions Moves >>0:22 1/10 0.18 2019899 1...Bg7 2.Nd5 Nb4 3.Nxb4 cxb4 4.Re1 >> Kb8 5.c5 f6 6.exf6 Bxf6 7.cxb6 >>0:28 1/10 0.02 2616465 1...Nb4 2.Rc1 Bg7 3.a3 Nd3+ 4.Bxd3 >> Rxd3 5.Ke2 Rdd8 6.Rhd1 Kb7 7.Kf3 >> Rhe8 >>0:44 2/11 0.05 4009153 1...Nb4 2.Rc1 Bg7 3.a3 Nd3+ 4.Bxd3 >> Rxd3 5.Ke2 Rdd8 6.Nd5 Bxd5 7.cxd5 >> Rxd5 8.Rhd1 Rhd8 9.Rxd5 Rxd5 >>1:37 3/12 -0.02 9618144 1...Nb4 2.Rc1 Bg7 3.a3 Nd3+ 4.Bxd3 >> Rxd3 5.Ke2 Rdd8 6.Rhd1 f6 7.exf6 >> Bxf6 8.Nd5 Bg7 >>4:36 4/13 -0.19 29219198 1...Nb4 2.Rc1 Bg7 3.a3 Nd3+ 4.Bxd3 >> Rxd3 5.Rhd1 Rxd1 6.Rxd1 f6 7.exf6 >> Bxf6 8.Nd5 Rd8 9.Ke2 >> >>The point is, you can't easily compare depths of programs where you don't know >>EXACTLY what they are doing. Searching to depth 10 in Chessmaster and Fritz >>will give a huge disparity in results, because their searches are nothing alike. >> The same goes for DB and Fritz. This is why I believe you can't compare >>reported search depths between programs (I can again use Junior as an example) >>and say that one 'outsearches' the other by some margin of plies. > > >Of course that is correct. But it isn't going to stop the "comparisons" so it >is going to be >a "correct but moot point". :) > >The DB haters will _remain_ DB haters and take pot shots at every opportunity. >Not much can >be done. Perhaps DB will return at some point and the debate can be replaced by >real results... I do not think that being the best is impossible for DB but I do not expect them to come back with the exact version that beated kasparov. If you ask me if I believe that they can become number 1 in the future thanks to their hardware advantage then I say yes but the question if the version that beated kasparov was better than Deep Fritz of today is a different question. Uri
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.