Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:43:54 10/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 1999 at 04:40:59, Ed Schröder wrote: >>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 Ditto for NPS values. What is a 'node'? Different programs give different answers...
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.