Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 03:10:17 02/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2002 at 16:34:52, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>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. >> >>He is not wrong if we talk about full width alpha beta. > Mmm. The notion of a ply has nothing to do with alpha-beta, full width, game trees or anything else. Or at least it does not depend on any of those things. A ply is one half move. Done. If we're talking about nominal search depth of programs etc., there are of course _huge_ differences between what can be said of the depth (in the unit of one ply) that is reported by a program, and it cannot be compared between to programs. I already said that in my previous post, so I assume Dann is not talking about that, but instead about the mere notion of a ply. That is what I am talking about, and I take the liberty to assume that Dann is reading the posts he replies to. He usually does, it seems. >Which is the same as saying "If we all wore giant balsa-wood shoes, we could >walk on water." >Nobody wears them, as far as I know. > Why is that the same? It is not. >There is no chess program on the planet that does that. (Except -- of course -- >for the rankest sort of amateur program). > >Beowulf will often spend 80% of its nodes in quiescense. > What does that have to do with the notion of a ply? >What about programs that have a very sophisticated SEE at the end of a ply? > What about them? >What about the way that Junior counts plies? > How does it count plies? >Some related threads: >http://www.it.ro/ccc_search/ccc.php?find_thread=118884 >http://www.it.ro/ccc_search/ccc.php?find_thread=120838 >http://www.it.ro/ccc_search/ccc.php?find_thread=13258 >http://www.it.ro/ccc_search/ccc.php?find_thread=71072 >http://www.it.ro/ccc_search/ccc.php?find_thread=78442 >http://www.it.ro/ccc_search/ccc.php?find_thread=109958 > >I could not find the thread where I was demanding that a ply is at least a good >measure to compare one program with the next as far as searching [it's not -- I >was wrong]. If I recall correctly, you were amongst those who gave me >correction! >;-) Woah, backup. I _never_ said that a ply is a good measure to compare programs. In fact, I said in my previous post that the notion of one ply is well defined, but that it cannot be used to compare nominal search depths etc. I think we agree, but that you are just not reading my posts... :) /David
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.