Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Nodes per second........

Author: Roberto Waldteufel

Date: 05:25:15 10/01/98

Go up one level in this thread



On September 28, 1998 at 11:28:42, Peter Fendrich wrote:

>On September 28, 1998 at 10:41:29, William H Rogers wrote:
>
>>The only time you should worry is when you newest version starts playing worse
>>than your old version. It was once written that if you had a perfect evaluation
>>function, you may not have to search deeper than one ply. This may not ever be
>>accieved, but the theory is justified. If searching 1,000,000 nodes does not get
>>better results than searching on 5,000 then stick with the 5,000. It is after
>>all the programs playing strength that counts, not how much it has to search to
>>achieve that goal....
>>Bill
>
>Sure, winning games is better than losing them... :)
>Search does in fact have some good effects by itself...
>There was an intresesting article in ICCA Journal a few years ago. I don't
>remember any details about the authors and such but here is what I remember from
>the article.
>They played two programs against each other with completely random evaluation.
>One program searched the tree, gave the leafs a random evaluation and and backed
>up the values in an alfa/beta manner. The other program just gave each move from
>the root a random evaluation. The first thoughts about a match like this is that
>the result will be as random as the evaluation code, but it wasn't!
>The results showed that the tree version was better because of a tendency to get
>more space just because of the tree search itself. Well, my memory is fading
>here...
>
>//Peter

Maybe the tree version would find shallow mates, and the root version would not?
I think this might well account for the difference.

Best wishes,
Roberto



This page took 0.23 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.