Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:37:12 01/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2001 at 01:10:26, Bas Hamstra wrote:
>On January 12, 2001 at 23:05:23, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On January 12, 2001 at 22:08:50, Bas Hamstra wrote:
>>
>>>I don't know if it useful to compare nodes this way. My first PV at depth=10
>>>comes in the order of nodes of GT, but then it switches 4 times, to end at a4 at
>>>22M nodes. I might be that GT was lucky to not have those expensive PV switches.
>>>
>>>Bas.
>>
>>
>>
>>It is true that you need to measure the number of nodes to reach a given ply
>>depth on a number of typical positions before you can say which program is the
>>most selective.
>>
>>However I can tell you in advance that you will (probably) discover that Chess
>>Tiger and Gambit Tiger are extremely selective. And the next versions will be
>>even more selective.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>No, no, don't do that! That's the way to promoting a pawn at move 216. Watching
>grass grow is far more interesting. Do you really want to score 55.1% at SSDF in
>stead on 54.93%? In stead of fireworks?
>
>Slightly worried,
>Bas.
The tree analyzed by Chess Tiger or Gambit Tiger in a typical middlegame
position is probably 10.000 to 100.000 times bigger than the one a GM would
analyze in the same position.
Do you find this satisfying? I don't.
Christophe
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.