Author: Tony Werten
Date: 14:42:58 06/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2002 at 17:30:51, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >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. > >Completely agreed. This integer which we are talking about should be better >called "iteration number". It basically defines how many times the search had >been restarted exploiting each time the results of the preceeding iteration in >order to extend the search tree. >IMHO, the relation of iteration number to search depth is a very loose one, >having in mind that todays programs are heavily pruning as well as extending. > Hmm. I can imagine that a program that uses partial ply extensions might decide, when the timelimit is almost reached, to start an iteration with only half a ply deeper. Or even worse. Every uses iterative deepening, but did anybody ever prove that full plies are best ? Maybe 2/3 ply is better ? Tony >Uli > >> >>-- >>GCP
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.