Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 01:40:59 10/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by leonid on October 02, 1999 at 08:23:35: > >Is really Rebel 10 raw speed (search by brute force)is higher that of >Hiarcs 7.32? > >For the last few months I am trying to find exactly where the raw speed of >my logic for positional search stays. I tryed few best games. My response >was that my "branching factor" was not good. It went between bad, very bad and >just normal. Problem is that you can't say for sure that the game that you >comparer with do the "brute force search". During the last surprise I >found that in Hiacrs to reach the "brute force" you must put its "selectivity" >to zero. Now it is likely that Rebel raw speed is even higher that Hiacrs. >Is this last finding only mirage or "final truth"? > >Thanks for response, >Leonid. Unfortunately there is no "final truth", so you can stop searching :) Thinking (for example) 6 plies deep with Program_X can't be compared with 6 plies deep for Program_Y. Main reason: different type of extensions chess programs use. Best example is Deep Blue. DB's iteration depth is in the same league as the micro's. It is said DB uses massive extensions which explains it all. It is impossible to compare chess programs on ply-depth. Ed Schroder
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.