Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:13:56 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 11:38:41, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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? Yes I am. Bruce is saying that a node is a node. This is not the case if you pile a bunch of evaluation on some nodes and not on others, obviously those heavy nodes are going to a better job than the "lightweight" nodes. In _this_ case you can't compare nodes. A node is meant to be unit of search, change the unit and you change the everything. -S. >-- >GCP
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.