Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Doesn't appear to work for me (full data)

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 07:49:46 11/22/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 22, 2002 at 06:39:47, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>On November 21, 2002 at 17:23:15, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>
>>>Time to solution is not a common method in academic computer chess papers. It is
>>>not generic enough, and is too program dependant to be scientifically
>>>acceptable.
>>>
>>>Apart from a few exceptions, I have seen no other publication which discusses
>>>time to solution.
>>
>>When comparing various searches within a single program, nodes to solution is
>>also okay.
>
>I disagree for the reasons below.
>
>>Time to solution allows irregularity because of timing anomalies and
>>more generally because the machines one has access to are not dedicated to your
>>task alone (other people can log on and do stuff).
>
>Easily fixed by getting a dedicated machine.
>
>>If the correlation between nodes and time is tightly linear (usually, it is,
>>for a non-tiny search) then using node counts aids reproducibility of results.
>
>Only if NPS is farily constant. That's pretty program dependant, and it
>certainly isn't true for me. Search changes can cause NPS differences.
>
>--
>GCP


I can only speak for my program, but my NPS doesn't vary by a factor of two from
opening to endgame.  Once both sides have castled, it doesn't vary much at
all...
Prior to that there is some complex development evaluation that slows it way
down.



This page took 0.07 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.