Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:10:00 01/17/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2006 at 19:34:27, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: >The CEGT list suggests that just maybe Rybka has made a big performance increase >(but we really don't know yet of course). > >Still, i was wondering. > >In terms of practical results, is it possible for changes in a search algorithim >to only be observable at longer time controls. Or should you observe differences >in both blitz and long time controls. I guess what i'm asking is, "what sort of >change in a search algorithim would only become apparent at longer time >controls." Sure. Consider sorting as a model. For small data sets, the O(n^2) sorts like insertion sort or shell sort are fastest. So, if I have 20 things to sort, insertion sort will beat introspective sort. But if I have millions of things, then introspective sort is going to clobber insertion sort because it is O(n*log(n)) and shell sort is O(n^2) In a similar vein, suppose that I invent a search technique that has a branching factor of 1.5. Now, the problem with my search technique is that it takes 20 minutes to gather data. So, if we are playing 40/2hrs, you are going to kill me with your 2.0 branching factor program. But if we are playing correspondence chess, I will outsearch you by 40 plies and you won't have a chance (depending on whether I am looking at the right nodes and throwing out the bad ones, of course). >Also, is it possible that some search features will work better in 64 bit >compared to 32 bit machines and engines? Why wait until the future? Rybka 64 bit outperforms Rybka 32 bit by a large margin, and (I am fairly sure) that it is exactly the same code. Any 64 bit operations are going to benefit from 64 bit CPUs.
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.