Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:19:14 04/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2003 at 13:05:13, John Merlino wrote: >On April 04, 2003 at 12:58:33, José Carlos wrote: > >>On April 04, 2003 at 12:39:14, John Merlino wrote: >> >>>On April 04, 2003 at 11:53:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 04, 2003 at 11:40:41, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>it would be interesting to run a match with a fix # of plies or depth instead of >>>>>using Time control. For instance depth 18. >>>>> >>>>>Jorge >>>> >>>>Doesn't make much sense. Some programs could reach "depth=18" quickly. >>>>Chessmater >>>>might take years. >>> >>>Exactly. Some programs, like Chessmaster, report their MINIMUM extension depth >>>in their PVs. Others, report the MAXIMUM. >>> >>>I guess it might work if you could force every engine to have no extensions and >>>just do a brute force search, say to depth 8 or so (pruning allowed). >>> >>>jm >> >> Prunning is basically the same concept as extending, ie give preference to >>some interesting subtrees over non interesting. Also, programs do different >>things in qsearch, so it isn't comparable. >> >> José C. > >Sorry, I meant to say "pruning NOT allowed". oops.... > >jm And then you have programs that some claim have _no_ q-search, vs some that have very complex q-searches. ply vs ply is simply impossible to evaluate, IMHO.
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.