Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 23:06:58 12/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 2001 at 01:13:34, Dann Corbit wrote: >There are lots and lots of statistics you can use. All of them are pretty well >useless except won/loss/draw against opponents of known strength. > >Here are some reasons why: >Suppose that I have a material only evaluation, and absurd pruning rules. I can >search like the burning blue blazes, but it will play like total crap. Granted, that if the rest of the program is poor, then no matter how many millions of NPS you're getting, you're not going to have a strong program. I thought your saying, "search like the burning blue blazes" was quite humorous also :) >Plys are probably one of the best indicators. However, if the eval is no good, >neither are the plys worth anything. > So for improving the raw performance of your own program, against only itself, some of these statistics are good tools then, correct? If my eval function is bad, then I should work on improving it, but my program will play better if it's searching twice as deep with a bad eval function than if it's searching half as deep with that same bad eval function. That's what I was really after. Improving a program relative to itself, not to other programs (although I would suspect that if you improved your ply depth, all other things remaining the same, that the program would perform somewhat better against other programs).
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.