Author: Michael Yee
Date: 16:43:59 10/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2005 at 17:46:02, chandler yergin wrote: >I apologize if I have offended anyone. >A case of "Apples & Oranges" again.. >Misunderstandings.. >Stephen, and a few others here, know I seldom voice "Opinions"; >I Post facts.. >That way... if someone differs from the Post, they should attack the Fact, >not the Poster. >It doesn't always work that way... >Everything I have Posted about Computer Chess Programs..I gave the Link >Everything else I have Posted about Engines, Analysis Modules, is directly >from the Chessbase Manual. It therefore refers to the Top Commercial >Programs only.. Fritz, & Shredder >Many of you that Program your own Engines 'tweak' them as you desire, >and have a lot of fun. >Players mostly use the Top Commercial Programs to assist in their play >and improve their expertise. >Thanks to a recent Post by Dan H. some of the confusion has been cleared up. >Chessbase does use Mini/Max and so does indeed search every legal move >for every position. >So the "Apples & Oranges" now are just the difference between the Top >Commercial Programs and the others. >I find it very intersting that some of the 'lesser' Engines are really >kicking Butt! Congrats to all! Keep it up... >A Swift Kick only hurts for a little while.. >;) >Chan The posts from Dan don't say that chessbase uses minimax and searches every legal move for every position. In fact, he said something almost the opposite--that if a program worked that way, it would be crushed. You actually supplied evidence of the answer in one of your other posts (where you provide a description of the analysis output). The analysis window reported: search depth = 12 (selective depth 40) positions searched = 4.2 x 10^7 If the analysis module really searched every position up to depth 12 (approximately 20 moves, 20 replies to each of those moves, 20 replies to each of those replies, etc.), then it would have searched 20^12 = 4.1 x 10^15 positions This is way more than what was reported in the analysis window. (And the 20 is a very low estimate of average moves per position anyway.) Instead, 4.32^12 = 4.22 x 10^7 shows a branching factor that's more like 4--i.e., the program was not searching every move in every position. Michael
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.