Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:54:45 09/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2001 at 11:07:27, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 18, 2001 at 09:10:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>Well if no one here manages to do that, who am i to say that the >>remainder of this algorithm is worth trying? > >Perhaps just noone bothered? > >>Which means that APHID already says who has to search what before relevance >>of parallel splitting has been indicated. Considering that nowadays we >>use nullmove bigtime, this makes APHID completely outdated, because >>it in short doesn't wait at all! > >They Crafty they used had nullmove R=2. Nowadays most people (I know >you don't, but you aren't everybody even if you continously think so) >use R=2/R=3. I'm pretty sure that isn't going to make the difference >between usefull and useless. All testresults they published are based upon 5 to 8 ply searches and based upon a program called TheTurk. No mention of crafty speedups, and if they are then it's still 5 to 8 ply. Who cares for 5 to 8 ply speedups in the year 2001? My speedup is horrible at 7 ply, no kidding, but look how my speedup is at bigger depths! I don't want to crack down results from the APHID team back in 1996, but we must clearly realize that what worked back then is NOT going to work in 2001 anymore! >>This refers to the fact that YBW for each node needs a result for the >>first move first before splitting other moves. Now this is of course very >>true, but this directly also shows that APHIDs branching factor is by >>definition bigger than algorithms which use YBW. > >I don't think they make any claims that their branching factor is better >than YBW. Would seem pretty silly to me. But then again, YBW probably >gets killed in different ways when having to deal with slow interprocess >comms on a cluster. > >-- >GCP
This page took 0.22 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.