Author: Aaron Tay
Date: 00:20:21 09/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2000 at 15:01:19, Christophe Theron wrote: >On September 26, 2000 at 09:31:30, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>It seems the current LG versions are nps wise down to slightly faster than >>Crafty :) I play it all the time at FICS. It seems is evolving to a slower and >>more knowledgable program. As is mine, BTW :) >> >>On September 25, 2000 at 01:38:15, Jouni Uski wrote: >> >>>In my moderate AMD K6-2 450Mhz and 50 MB hash it exceeds easily 1000knps in >>>tactical positions and sometimes goes over 1300knps. Of course I know this means >>>almost nothing to playing strength, but still it's unbelievable. I wonder can >>>it be true nps value or has Michael B. his own node definition... >>> >>>Jouni > > > >Don't mix up "slower NPS" and "more knowledge". They have nothing to do with >each other. > >In my example, I have said how I could make Tiger much faster just by turning >off some obvious selection schemes. If I turn these selection algorithms back >on, then the program is suddenly much slower. It is also much stronger. > >But the amount of "knowledge", as most people understand by "knowledge" has NOT >changed at all. I mean that the evaluation of chess positions is still exactly >the same. If the program does not understand a knight outpost in the fastest >version, then it still does not understand it with the slower version. > >When a new version of a known program is released, some people will look at the >NPS and say "Oh, the NPS of the new version is lower, so I guess more knowledge >has been added to the program". Bullshit. > > > > Christophe Sorry but talking as a person who knows nothing sbout chess programming, isn't it true that the more complicated evalution functions you add, the slower the search becomes to reach the same depth?
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.