Author: Steve Coladonato
Date: 08:31:45 06/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2002 at 02:40:59, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On June 24, 2002 at 18:53:24, Steve Coladonato wrote: > >>>I wonder what you consider 'comparable'. There's no guarantee >>>they'll be similar whatsoever. >> >>That was not a well formed statement on my part. What I meant was that for a >>given ply depth, the evaluation that program X comes up with should be >>comparable to the evaluation that program Y comes up with if both programs are >>fairly equal in overall strength. > >No. There is no guarantee whatsoever that this is true. > >>Therefore, if the algorithms/heuristics that >>program X uses allow it to get to ply M faster than program Y, then program X >>should win if the time allowed constrains how much time each program can use for >>analysis at that depth. For example, if program X can get to ply 11 in 30 secs >>and program Y takes 1 min 30 secs to get there, the overall analysis that >>program X can generate during a game should be better than that generated by >>program Y and program X should win. So it seems that the efficiency of the >>algorithms/heuristics will determine the overall strength of a program. > >Again, this is completely false. > >I will repeat what I said several times earlier in this thread, and that >is that plies are not comparable between chessprograms. The analysis of >one program at ply 11 can be completely different and of higher >quality than another at the same 11 ply. If the second program reaches >ply 11 faster, we have no information at all to make any solid conclusions >about the relative strength of those programs. > >-- >GCP I posted a reply to this but several layers up in the thread. Steve
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.