Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 10:13:11 01/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
>Thorsten, I believe Don is right, and the first plies are full width. > >This is not in contradiction with your feeling that the search is >asymetrical. But what you seem to underestimate is the fact that Genius >has a very good way of extending its search beyond the nominal full >width depth. And in this extended part I believe that you are right, it >is very asymetrical. Ok - accepted. Lets compromise. The search depth GENIUS shows is NOT the full-width. It is full-width + extensions and what is the other search-depth-indicator ? If Genius shows e.g. 6/18 6 cannot be full-width. Otherwise it would have seen Rxe6 because the plot of this position is NOT that deep. So - the first number is NOT full-width. it is full-width and maybe the extensions are asymmetric. I can compromise to this. This would mean: I would never find a position that is NOT found by genius. Ok. Accepted. But when I find a position that is not found in 1,3,5,7,9 I will let you know. But than you have to explain what the 2nd number is ! Maximal peak of extensions ? I don't think so. What is S18 ?? 6+12 = 18 ?? I still believe the old dedicated-machine search depth indicator's were always misunderstood. What if M was not the search-depth but the number of odd-plies (2,4,6,8,9) and the second number , the S-term is maybe not what we guess it is. I think Richars search (or richards extensions way) is so different that anybody THOUGHT these indicators are the same like in HIS OWN normal programs.But it wasn't. His search indicators (of the old dedicated machines) made only a sense when you have a different explanation from my point of view. As I said, the M stuff in the dedicated machines was very very low. Too low !! Often you saw e.g. Roma 68000 only in M1 and M2 was often the maximum in a 40/120 game. Sometimes you saw M3 !! But not often. > >This is enough to make you believe it is asymetrical from begining to >end, because generally the extended search is way deeper than the full >width search, and has a great influence on the choice of the first move. > >When 2 valuable people come to opposite ideas, maybe they should first >consider that nobody's wrong, instead of spending years in arguing. Hope >that you won't take this personal. The same for you, Don. We have never spent years arguing against each other. Nor do I think I will argue with Don a year about it. I have great respect for Don and would not imagine to argue with him heavily. But I am sure, when I would show him my old dedicated Lang Roma 68000 machine and we would let it compute 1 second each move and we would get the log-file (we would have do write it down manually) he would see that there are some secrets with this 64-KB program. It is not coming deep enough (with the M-part) and has big senseful main-lines and deep S-parts. > >(We are just exchanging ideas for fun here, and I'm always surprised to >see very bitter words in others threads. I'm not talking about the two >of you) When I discuss it is always fun. maybe often people take it too serious. But this is not true. It is fun for me. I am not a "I am always right" person. The exchange of positions or ideas is the important thing !
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.