Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 10:58:22 08/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 2000 at 07:54:32, leonid wrote: >On August 09, 2000 at 21:44:38, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On August 09, 2000 at 17:32:48, leonid wrote: >> >>>On August 09, 2000 at 17:04:37, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On August 09, 2000 at 15:59:24, leonid wrote: >>>> >>>>>>I don't recall Ed ever calling his search brute force. >>>>>> >>>>>>-Tom >>>>> >>>>>If it is so, now I see why my branching factor is so miserable. >>>>> >>>>>I asked above question when I tried to solve this position by brute force. For >>>>>black side I looked up to 10 plys deep and it took already 12 min 17 sec. Move >>>>>was wrong. Black knight goes to the position e2. And for finding right move I >>>>>must go to the next 12 plys search. But this could take some next 6 hours. This >>>>>is how my old question about branching factor came to me. It prohibit to my >>>>>program to see very rapidly and reach far distance. >>>> >>>>You're the only person in the entire world who does these "brute force" >>>>searches. >>>> >>>>-Tom >>> >>>When you want to know if your basic speed is the right one, only brute force >>>search could say you so. This I remember from writing my program for finding >> >>I don't know what basic speed means, but I'm sure that there isn't a right one. >>And a fixed-depth brute force search with no extensions and no quiescence search >>won't tell you anything useful. >> >>-Tom > >Tom, if you compare two programs that do its search, but not by brute force, you >actually compare "pruning technics" for both of them. But how much program with >good pruning technics still miss from its potential, you will find by seeing its >brute force speed only. What potential? Presumably the pruning techniques are increasing the program's potential, otherwise the author wouldn't use them. -Tom
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.