Author: James Swafford
Date: 10:53:12 11/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2002 at 13:46:26, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 06, 2002 at 13:35:44, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On November 06, 2002 at 07:18:57, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On November 06, 2002 at 07:15:43, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On November 06, 2002 at 04:45:16, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 06, 2002 at 02:07:47, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 06, 2002 at 01:59:50, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>So the secret for strong play is still SPEED. >>>>>> >>>>>>A good program must be both a quick searcher and a good evaluator. >>>>> >>>>>Tiger14 is not a fast searcher and I guess that the same is for tiger15. >>>>>I do not think that a good program must be a quick searcher. >>>> >>>>?? Tiger 14 searches very deep. I'm not talking about nodes per >>>>second - that's meaningless anyway. >>> >>>People usually mean nodes per second when they talk about fast and slow >>>searchers. >>> >>>Uri >> >>That's probably true, but it shouldn't be. To me, "fast" is time to depth. As >>long as it is accomplished in a reasonble way that does not miss a significant >>amount of relevant lines. > > >You have other problems > >1)extensions. > >programs with a lot of extensions may need more time to get the same depth but >it means nothing. > >2)Suppose program A needs 1 second to get depth 9 and 1 hour to get depth 19 >when program B needs 1 second to get depth 8 and 1 hour to get depth 20. > >Which program is faster by your definition? > He defined fast as time to depth, so it's a function of depth. speed=f(depth). So your question is missing information. You can say program A is faster at d=8, and B faster at d=19. Maybe better is time to "correct" move, as if that's easily defined. -- James >Uri
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.