Author: Ernst A. Heinz
Date: 09:22:31 11/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
> On November 01, 2000 at 00:17:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >I should add that the quoted within 30% of optimal seems wrong. I recall >Hans Berliner doing a test like this and I believe he quoted 100%. IE the >searched tree was about twice as big as the optimal tree, which is _still_ >very good since we can't possibly have perfect move ordering. I am sorry to say so, Bob, but you are _dead wrong_ here. Ebeling and Berliner always mentioned 40% overhead for HITECH as compared to the critical tree in their publications. See page 102 in "Computers, Chess, and Cognition" for example. Tony Marsland provides a nice comparison of the various search and move-ordering enhancements with respect to the critical tree in Figure 8 of "Computer Chess and Search" published in the "Encyclopedia of AI (2nd ed.)". There we see 20% to 30% overhead at depths of 2 to 6 plies for the combination of all those enhancements (including PVS, best hashed move, and history heuristic). Last but not least, Rainer Feldmann mentions the 20% to 30% overhead in his Ph.D. thesis about the sequential version of ZUGZWANG. I am really surprised that you do not seem to remember these numbers because I am sure that you know the publications I refer to above. =Ernst=
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.