Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:21:13 04/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2003 at 14:19:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. And before someone says "Q-search is not allowed" I can add that programs could use a better evaluation in case of assumption that qsearch is not allowed. Uri
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.