Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:27:38 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 01:38:07, Christophe Theron wrote: > > >I don't forget this. > >I'm just saying that the thing could have been much stronger if they had worked >on implementing a good pruning scheme rather than this SE thing. > > I definitely don't agree here. I watched them play *socrates at an acm event, where *socrates was searching considerably faster than they were in terms of NPS, and in terms of depth of search reached. They blew *socrates out on a tactical level anyway... > > >Maybe or maybe not. > >My interest was rather in the fact that they used a probably suboptimal approach >in a multimillion dollars project. > >Not sure anymore if you are interested in talking about this... > > I am always interested. I had said before that I would like to see how I could play on hardware that would drive my search to a depth of 19 plies. But I am a long way from being ready to say "they probably used a suboptimal approach in a multimillion dollars project" since I don't have the hardware to play with. But what if I had a null-move and non-null-move crafty, and on the new hardware, the non-null-move program made fewer mistakes overall? I'd go with that in an instant. Where on slower hardware the null-move depth gained might be very worth-while (it obviously is as I use it today)... I simply can't say their way was right or wrong without testing a known program to see. If all I have to go on is their results, I have to say they did well. > > Christophe
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.