Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 19:53:11 11/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 1999 at 11:59:46, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 23, 1999 at 03:54:48, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>Posted by Christophe Theron on November 22, 1999 at 18:25:35: >>> >>>>>Was it better than Sargon II, or just equal? >>>> >>>>It was better because Sargon was outplayed by search depth in most >>>>cases. In that days Rebel was able to look 6 plies deep all very selective >>>>and much holes involved but very effective playing a program thinking >>>>just 4 plies deep. >>> >>>6 plies on a TRS-80 in the time Sargon took to compute 4? >>> >>>I have the old Sargon II for TRS-80 manual just in front of me. A green manual: >>>"Hayden computer program tapes, Sargon II: A computer chess program by Dan and >>>Kathe Spracklen". I have kept it as a souvenir (I also have the cassette, >>>but I don't dare to open the box). >>> >>>The manual says that it took 6 minutes (average) to compute to ply depth 4. >>> >>>You are saying that in 6 minutes you were able to compute to ply depth 6 on a >>>TRS-80??? >> >>6 plies indeed all very selective but a friend of mine had doubled the >>processor speed from 1.77 Mhz to 3.5 Mhz. On standard 1.77 Mhz Rebel on >>40/120 was only able to compute 4 plies and some moves on 6 plies. >> >>The first Rebel was a strange animal. I had to re-invent the wheel >>completely as I had no access to documentation, I wasn't even aware >>documentation existed. >> >>No alpha/beta, no windows, no Q-search, the program could only think >>in steps of 2 plies. Thus 2,4,6,8 etc. > > >??? > >How did it work? Why the always even depth? Maybe he had a big odd/even effect. Funny that he didn't choose 1, 3, 5, 7 ... though. 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.