Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 09:53:09 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 12:13:56, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. No, that is not the point at all. The point is (I'm repeating exactly what I said before) that searching slower to a certain depth but getting more solutions is no proof that the algorithm is better. What a node is or is not has nothing whatsoever to do with this. -- 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.