Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 15:31:22 09/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 21:47:10, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 14, 2000 at 21:08:56, Amir Ban wrote: >>The point was that the nominal ply depth has little or zero meaning, since the >>whole pruning and extension context should be weighed in. Alternatively, it is >>possible to change the pruning and extension strategy to reach any ply depth >>you wish to name. > >Of course, and it will not be useful if it introduces a statistically >significant amount of error. Programs that add the wrong extensions will >perform poorly. Right...but this is not a refutation of his statement. Not al all... >>For me, it is enough to note that the challenge is irrelevant for Junior, as >>it does not even count depth in plies. > >Semantics. It expands the depth of the search on each new iteration. Call it >what you want, it's depth in plies. I do know that you have special extensions >for recaptures, etc. but that could be considered a type of pruning. Utter nonsense. By this definition, I have a program that can search over 1000 plys. >>Ply depth is not more than a convenient fiction. > >Ply depth can be rigidly and correctly defined. This is correct, but only for fixed-depth searchers without forward pruning. That is a VERY small subset of chessplaying algorithms. >I suppose the best possible measure is "finding the right answer" >but that is a lot harder to estimate than depth in >plies. If answer == move or game-theoretic value then I believe it's the only good way to compare. -- GCP
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.