Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:31:15 12/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2003 at 12:04:52, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >[snip] >>No >[snip] >>It is not the way that you describe. >[snip] > >Uri, do us all a favor and keep your "I do not believe it" nonsense out of this >thread. If you want to back up your statements with data or at least some form >of reasoned argument, fine. But enough with the random statements of how I am >wrong. This is a _discussion_ board. > >anthony I forgot to explain it but it is not nonsense You asked: "What do you think is stronger: 35 14-ply searches and 5 8-ply searches, or 40 13-ply searches?" When you use pruning you do not get this kind of behaviour. It is more like 40 13-ply search against 10 15-ply search, 20 14-ply search,5 13-ply search,4 12-ply search and 1-11 ply search. It is not searching 1 ply deeper against searching many plies less than it. You can also say that null move is bad by this logic because programs who use null move pruning can even miss a simple mate in 2. The point is that the cases are rare enough. Same here and something equivalent to 8-ply search in the same time that you do 13 ply search is so rare that it is not 1 out of 40 but a lot less than it. 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.