Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 09:04:49 05/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2004 at 11:51:24, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On May 03, 2004 at 11:04:59, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>As a physicist, you consider all numbers within an order of magnitude as equal >>;) > >Then you are not a physicist, but an engineer :) > >As a physicist, you care first and foremost about the error analysis of >the results (which immediately allows you to conclude whether they are >identical or not). Ever seen any error margins in a computer chess paper? > >-- >GCP Honestly, I can't say that I understand the argument here. First, it is not clear to me that DTS implies any splitting method. So it seems like, depending on your splitting method, your speedup could be 0-M, where M any number ;) Secondly, I didn't think Crafty used DTS. So it is not clear why results with Crafty reflect on DTS. In fact, I thought that almost no one was using DTS nowadays because it requires an iterative search. The only clear statement here seems to be that Crafty is less efficient with nullmove is on by 3-10%, depending on the position. Even if you prove the results are not identical (with X probability) it is clear null move is not _massively_ affecting the performance. anthony
This page took 0.01 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.