Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Benchmarking chess algorithms

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 16:02:36 07/20/99

Go up one level in this thread


On July 20, 1999 at 18:38:13, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
[snip]
>Board representation, search algorithm, evaluation routine,...all interact with
>one another in ways that make isolating one component of a program from another
>problematical. How you generate moves affects how you perform (and how quickly)
>evaluations. How you search effects how you should eval - coarsness of eval for
>example. Idea is well motivated, but its too hard to do this "scientifically".
>You may generate a lot of data, but what will it mean?
No idea is too hard to test scientifically, unless it is proven to be
computationally infeasible.
The internet provides a computing resource so profound that problems which are
unthinkable may actually be solvable.
Consider:
* Mersenne Prime solutions
* Linux
* GCC
All of these are absurd projects without the net.
But then, I almost always try to do something when someone says it can't be done
and I think that there is some slim possibility that it might.




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.