Author: Pete Galati
Date: 07:40:12 05/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2000 at 02:08:01, Ed Schröder wrote:
>On May 10, 2000 at 01:59:57, Michael Neish wrote:
>
>>
>>>Consider two programs which both reach 9 plies searched, but one has quiescent
>>>search, SEE, and various extensions and the other does not. Again, the
>>>definition is misleading. I would like to see a definition like this:
>>>1. minply {due to NULL-move, etc) is the shallowest actual search depth (IOW
>>>brute force depth)
>>>2. aveply {is the actual search depth with assumption that NULL move or
>>>whatever pruning mechanism is sound}
>>>3. maxply {due to extensions, quiescent search, etc} is the maximum depth
>>>actually visited.
>>
>>I see, so you're saying that some programs might be measuring different things
>>... I didn't think of that. I would have expected the number of times that
>>Search() had been called iteratively as the definition of ply depth, and assumed
>>everyone was doing the same.
>>
>>I remember playing Hiarcs against a (non-commercial) program that was searching
>>about twice as deep and still got smashed.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Mike.
>
>The "value" of a ply differs for each program. It "mainly" has to do with
>extensions although other things are important also. If a program extends
>many moves it will produce a lower ply depth than a program that uses few
>extensions. This is just one example.
>
>Ed
I noticed the other day from looking at the Deeper Blue/Kasp logs, when I looked
at the less insane looking cleaned up logs, that Deeper Blue didn't _appear_ to
be searching all that deep. What I decided was that those logs were not such a
good indication of what was happening. Probably also that I didn't understand
what I was looking at.
Pete
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.