Author: Adrien Regimbald
Date: 08:40:42 08/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hello, >This sounds slightly incorrect to me. What I (and most others) call "brute >force" search *is* alpha-beta. If you mean that you must do a search without I realize that some people (rather incorrectly, IMO) call pure alpha-beta brute force search, I use the term brute force search correctly - ie. brute force search implies that all moves are examined at every node right up to depth <x>. Perhaps you could call pure alpha-beta "complete search", but "brute force"? Absolutely not. >alpha-beta to guarantee no missed mates, this is incorrect. Alpha-beta misses >nothing that pure mini-max finds. If you do an alpha-beta search out to depth ><x> without any reductions, you are guaranteed to find all the mates within >that range (to depth <x-1> if you need the extra ply for mate detection). > >Now if you start doing forward pruning (Null move, etc.) or you do various >reductions and so forth, you might begin to miss mates within the horizon. >But alpha-beta pruning is a sort of freebe since you get the same result >as pure mini-max. Of course I was speaking of alpha-beta with all the standard trappings. I am not going to list all of the possible search enhancements (reductions) which could ruin the detection of mates, because I'd never come up with a complete list, and it'd get awfully long! :P Regards, Adrien.
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.