Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 15:55:35 12/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2002 at 18:06:09, Dann Corbit wrote: >Time to solution and number of solutions is the key for test problems (to my way >of thinking). If we count nodes, the slow searchers will look very bad. > >I think a bigger problem with test suites is that there is a plethora of >excellent tactical test suites and a dirth of excellent positional test suites. >So we measure tactical prowess effectively, but this does not necessarily >translate into excellence in play. Counting nodes means nothing if you are going to compare them between programs, which Omid is not doing, so no knock on Omid there. With this kind of thing, what you are trying to do is get (presumably) the same result in less time. Less nodes is not *quite* the same as less time, even with the same program. It's like measuring someone's height by measuring their shadow. It is more direct to measure their height, even though measuring their shadow will get you close. Getting to the same depth in shorter time is also not quite the same, if you don't get at least as many problems correct. Neither is getting to the same depth in more time and then saying this is better because you find more solutions. You have to compare apples with apples or you've *proven* nothing, all you've done is *implied* something. That's not science. This has nothing to do with "excellence" in play. The whole idea is to take what excellences is there and make it faster. Is this technique faster? The data doesn't say. And this is a chronic problem when people write articles on search techniques. bruce
This page took 0.01 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.