Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: An Experiment that disproves Hyatt's 1000X NPS Theory

Author: ALI MIRAFZALI

Date: 06:30:31 09/19/05

Go up one level in this thread


On September 18, 2005 at 14:12:11, Chan Rasjid wrote:

>I do not know about your experiment, if they could be erroneous by some chance
>you are not aware, nps reported out by 200 x etc..
>
>Quote:-
>"A lot of STRENGTH is EVALUATION FUNCTION".
>Seemingly,logic don't show evaluation to be important as long as you outsearch
>others. Just consider how many plies ahead is an eval() good for.
>
>I tested in the past this :-
>program A - pure fixed depth search that uses only material and all check-mate.
>program B - A + some basic common evaluation (non controversial)
>
>Result( most probable ?)- A wins B (all the time ?)as long as it searches 4-5
>plies deeper.
>
>This means there is NO-MATCH whatsoever with a 1 - 1000x nps difference.
>Fruit's seems to sacrifice complicated (undue) evaluation in favour of high nps
>and makes the top.
>
>So likely, your experiment is not measuring what it is supposed to proof.
>
>Chan Rasjid.
This is simply wrong ;I looked at the NPS for both programs.



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.