Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:55:21 12/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2001 at 04:40:03, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>On December 29, 2001 at 04:24:55, Otello Gnaramori wrote:
>
>>On December 28, 2001 at 23:51:33, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>>
>>>On December 28, 2001 at 21:57:03, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think it is rather well established by now that human players are, like
>>>>computers, studying a chess tree, trying to find the best possible continuation.
>>>
>>>Actually, not. That is the vicious influence from Kotov's teaching that
>>>made everybody think that they should think like a tree.
>>>There are recently two books that finally made in writing what everybody
>>>suspected. "Improve your Chess Now" by J. Tisdall and "Secrets of Practical
>>>Chess". Not even amateurs are taught NOT to think like a tree nowadays, and the
>>>best book about it is "How to reasess your Chess" by J. Silman.
>>>
>>>First quote from Tisdall's book, first Chapter ("The Fabled Tree of Analysis"):
>>>
>>>"I do not think like a tree - do you think like a tree?" GM Anatoly Lein.
>>>
>>>There are certain situations where a strong player think like a tree, but
>>>their thinking should certainly not be characterized by that.
>>>
>>
>>Taking as an example Kasparov, he is renowned for his powerful calculations
>>capabilities of the variations (...tree), both in analysis and both in OTB.
>
>Being able to come up with variations does not a tree searcher make.
>
>A SEE can come up with a variation and it's not searching anything.
I don't think so.
My SEE for example is a recursive function. It is a tree searching algorithm,
but a special one: it looks at only one successor for each node. The tree is
degenerated, but it is still a tree.
No position is generated, but they exist virtually because the function visits a
succession of capture moves (and these moves are really enumerated in memory).
In the definition of NPS, it is true that it is difficult to decide to either
count these virtual nodes or not.
A program can use a SEE at its horizon, so it will not count these nodes.
Another program can do a real QSearch and will count these nodes (and some
more).
But they are doing almost the same job (OK, the QSearch one will be more
accurate), probably using almost the same CPU time, with a significantly
different node count.
That's why I was only talking about an order of magnitude for the NPS.
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.