Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 14:06:58 11/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2002 at 12:21:34, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On November 22, 2002 at 12:08:12, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On November 22, 2002 at 07:00:01, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>I think you are right, search times are no good, for many reasons. >> >>However, why don't you use nodes to solution, rather than nodes to depth? >> >>The priority is to solve the position as fast as possible, nodes to solution is >>a direct measure of that. >> >>If you measure nodes to ply 10, what does that say? >>It doesn't say a lot, I can get to ply 10 in 124 nodes, but the program won't be >>any good. So you need confirmation that you didn't wreck it by running the test >>suite. >> >>Instead of having the test suite be an indirect verification test, why not use >>it directly? >> > >Nodes to solution is a great idea. But there are some positions that need a >tremendous amount of time to be solved. > >That idea will be practical only if we have a pool of positions that can be >solved within a reasonable time. That is true. But what do you conclude if a new algorithm produces a smaller tree, but also solves fewer positions, or vice versa; Solves more positions but also produce a larger tree? I think that must be the danger of aiming for two seperate optimizations. -S.
This page took 0.02 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.