Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:49:28 04/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 1998 at 19:33:25, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi Amir: >I have just played my first game against Junior -the module in Fritz- at >a relatively serious rhythm, 40 in 60, game that I lost after 50 moves >of a very hard fight for him but specially for me, of course, otherwise >I would be the winner. >My first impression is that the expression fast searcher with which is >defined even by you in the cd-rom clip is somewhat misleading as much as >there is some ambiguity in the definition of what it is fast search in >the first place. >What I saw is that Junior reaches very very soon 12 ply, faster than >Fritz even if Fritz counts more nodes per second than Junior. Then, I >thought that the speed of search should not be automatically considered >like something equal to the count number, but to the ply number. In my >opinion Junior is fast because he goes very soon to very deep searches, >not because the great crunching of nodes he does to get that. I can >easily imagine an even faster computer in terms of nodes, but very slow >in terms of ply if the search is totally full-width, without any pruning >at all. In that case the very fact of exponential growing of the tree >would impede a deep search at all. On the contrary. I can imagine an >slow thinking machine -like the human brain- reaching very deep levels >of ply because of an exceedingly good pruning or selective search. >So, when we say that this or that program is fast searcher we are not >concluding the search of how that program is, as it seem to happens, but >just beginning with it. We don t advance even an step saying that a >program is fast searcher in comparison with another that supposedly is > knowledge searcher . If, as I think, fast search equals deep search, >then there is a pruning device, a selective criteria. And if there is >such thing, the key to understand the problem is not just to say how > fast the program is, but to insvestigate how the program do so deep >search. >So, dear Amir, why don t you tell us a little bit the way you get those >very deep searches? >Fernando he's answered this several times here. that "depth" is not the same as the "depth" other programs report. So you can't compare those numbers and get any meaningful information...
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.