Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 08:02:18 10/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 1999 at 05:26:54, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On October 01, 1999 at 02:47:06, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On September 30, 1999 at 20:26:02, Peter McKenzie wrote: >> >>>On September 30, 1999 at 14:35:25, Charles Unruh wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> In the past i thought faster hardware would benefit slow searchers like >>>>Chessmaster more than fast searchers like Fritz. Now i'm more inclined to >>>>believe that it makes more sense that faster hardware benefits fast searchers >>>>more. For the reason that positional ideas are for the most parts moves made >>>>from practical experience/knowledge, that we can't always quite calculate. >>>>However, faster hardware gives programs the ability in many instances to >>>>actually be able to calculate the result. So although i think Chessmaster is a >>>>truly awesome engine especially against programs running up to 233Mhz I expct >>>>that on a P450Mhz it will come in 3rd or 4th. >>> >>>This isn't a simple question. >>>My basic take on the issue is that programs that sacrifice some speed (in terms >>>of NPS) in return for a better evaluation will do better as hardware speed >>>increases and/or time controls get longer. The basic premise behind this >>>argument is that an extra ply of search depth becomes less important at greater >>>depths, so at greater depths the evaluation function becomes a more important >>>factor. >> >>And the basic problem with this take is that the premise, at least by today's >>best guess, simply wrong. >> >>ref: Crafty Goes Deep, DarkThought Goes Deep (both in ICCA Journal) > >I'm not convinced by the methodology used in the 'Go Deep' papers. But >certainly the premise could be completely wrong :-) > >One interesting point, as discussed in the DartThought articles, is that most >published self play experiments have been statistically insignificant. > >Another thing, perhaps fixed ply games aren't what we should be interested in >since in real games searches are much deeper in the endgame. Fixed time would >be better. > >> >>Dave I agree that fixed time would be better. BTW, I'd cringe if I saw results posted based on Auto-232 games! ;-) Dave
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.