Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:40:01 11/24/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 1998 at 03:14:02, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 23, 1998 at 22:38:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>If they take (say) 5 minutes to do a 10 ply search, at 250M+ nodes per second, >>that is over 300X the number of nodes a full-width search to depth=10 should >>search. If you factor in a q-search that is the same size as the full-width >>part, we have a missing factor of 150 to account for. I say that is *all* >>search extensions. And I say that is *far* more than any of the rest of us do >>in terms of extensions. How *else* would you characterize this? > >I don't want to go into a heated discussion, but I notice: > >A program that does no forward pruning has a branching factor of (roughly) 5. > >A program that uses null move has a branching factor of (roughly) 3. > > (5^10) / (3^10) = 165.38 > >Weren't you looking for a factor of 150 or so ? > >If the IBM team is interested I can provide some help for their null move >implementation. This way we could have the power of Deeper Blue with only one of >their chip stuffed into a simple PC. :) > > > Christophe One minor flaw in this discussion. :) Neither Junior *nor* Deep Blue use null-move. *now* how would you explain that factor of 1,000? Bob
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.