Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 20:00:15 08/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 17, 2000 at 22:23:54, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 17, 2000 at 21:21:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>Hello, >> >>A few years ago (about 3) i claimed that searching 18-20 ply was possible >>with huge hashtables, nullmove, a good evaluation function, and >>several billions of nodes. > >searching 18-20 plies with recursive null move pruning is possible and there is >no doubt about it. > >You may miss things because of null move. >> >>I was considered nuts by half of the RGCC population, because no >>branching factor was capable of being that good, when you would >>search deeper, your branching factor would NOT get under 4.0, that >>was considered impossible by a lot of people even. >> >>Obviously most people following: "i believe that i see in the ads >>or where i see the outputs from", they challenged me. Some went even >>that far and called me nuts, a liar and a frog and many other terms. > >I did not read RGCC but I believe that people called you a liar because you make >the impression that you can see everything in the next 18-20 plies except some >lines that you will look for only 14-16 plies because of null moves when the >fact is that you can miss also lines with 10 plies because you use recursive >null move pruning(I remember that this was my impression when I read your posts >here about 18-20 plies). > >I do not say that using recursive null move is wrong but your 18-20 ply search >can miss 10 plies lines(If your evaluation is good enough these lines are >usually not important but I believe that there are cases when they are >important) This is incredible hard to believe. The number of positions where 3 free moves + qsearch will fail. If that fails, then there must be something really wrong in evaluation! With a material only program proof isn't hard btw for this, as you can take openingsposition where my stupid experiment played 1.a3 searching 30 plies. However, the whole discussion 3 years ago, when i cannot remember any person called Uri Blass posting at that time, was not a claim of mine that chess could be solved. My claim was that branching factor above 10 plies was much better as i expected it to be, because of better working of hashtables. So what you write here above is completely made up this night. >Uri
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.