Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 08:38:41 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 07:47:15, Sune Fischer wrote: >On December 17, 2002 at 19:42:10, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>We have his new version, and it gets to the same depth more slowly, and finds >>more answers, than R=3. This proves nothing. I could make a program where the >>eval function incorporates a 2-ply search. It would take longer to search 9 >>plies, but it would get a lot more right. This is the same result that Omid >>got. Did he just prove that my hypothetical program is better? Of course not. >> >>If you accept his method as proof, he did prove that VR=3 is better than R=2, I >>point out. But he should have tackled R=3, too, if he is going to present that >>data. > >If you want to compare _search_ algorithms, you shouldn't go and change the >evaluation or completely redefine the word "node" from one program to the next. > >The whole assumption here is that they are identical, except for changes in the >search parameters. I don't see how this affects Bruce's point. His point is that searching slower to a certain depth but getting more solutions is no proof that the algorithm is better. Are you arguing this is wrong? -- GCP
This page took 0.01 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.