Author: Michael Yee
Date: 18:32:06 12/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2003 at 20:38:03, Russell Reagan wrote: >On December 08, 2003 at 20:27:33, Steven Edwards wrote: > >I like the NATS idea. > >>One plan is to categorize position difficulty based on >> >> d = log N d: difficulty N: node count to solution > >Would the method for counting nodes be standardized? Some count nodes >differently than others. For instance, one might not count the nodes visited >during a null-move search and instead count the root node from which that >null-move search was performed as a single node. Some programs do a great deal >more work per node. Maybe more than one metric should be used. I think time is a >better one than nodes. Nodes seem dependent upon the design philosophy of the >engine writer. > >The times would go down as hardware gets faster, but that is part of the point >of test suites, to determine how computer chess has advanced, and hardware is a >part of that equation. You can normalize the times to sum to 1 so that scaling the hardward has no effect. For instance, solution times of 1, 2, and 8 would become 1/10, 2/10, and 8/10. Then if the hardware became 4 times faster, the normalized values would be 4/40, 8/40, and 32/40 (which are the same as before). I agree that using time would take care of different definitions of "node". Michael
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.