Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:36:04 01/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2002 at 14:31:38, David Rasmussen wrote: >On January 31, 2002 at 13:13:57, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 31, 2002 at 06:58:28, David Rasmussen wrote: >>[snip] >>>>Just like "ply" means 20 different things to 20 different programmers. Even >>>>"nodes" does not always mean the same thing. >>>> >>> >>>Agree with you on nodes, but ply? Ply is pretty well defined, I think. >> >>For sure it is not. In fact, even when we agree, we disagree. Every single >>chess program will have a tree of a different shape. So even when we count >>plies the same way, the actual search can be incredibly different (with the >>number of nodes visited differing by several orders of magnitude). Compare, for >>instance, Mchess with Goliath. >> >>Junior [for instance] does not count plies the same way as other programs. >> >>Ply is ill defined. In fact, I think it is actually impossible to define it >>accuracy, except in the brute force sense. And absolutely nobody exhausts a ply >>when doing chess games with an engine. >>[snip] > >That is bull. A ply is a half move and that is that. What you are talking about >is: what does it mean when we say a program searches 8 ply? Of course if that is >the question, the answers are as many as there are programs. But in this thread >we are talking about a full width alpha-beta tree (at least, since DB had >singular extensions, which requires extra searches), of some fixed depth search >in a given program (that is, move ordering and evaluation forms the tree). I suggest that you lookup with the CCC search engine the dozens of posts that shot *ME* down when I tried to insist that a ply is a ply is a ply. The thorough and convincing arguements against it showed that I was clearly wrong. As you are clearly, unmistakeably, and totally wrong right now.
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.