Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:06:35 05/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2004 at 12:04:49, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >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. Correct. But let's not let actual facts cloud the argument... > >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 That's the point.
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.