Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 09:17:27 12/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2002 at 11:23:28, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 09, 2002 at 11:14:42, Bob Durrett wrote: <snip> >>>I believe that programs generates trees that are too big and it is possible to >>>get the same target by clearly smaller trees. >> >>That seems to be the main thrust of the "tricks," like alpha/beta. But these >>sorts of tricks have been around quite awhile now. They are almost becoming "Ho >>Hum." Wouldn't it seem unlikely that anybody will discover any surprising new >>trick for making the trees smaller? [Small evolutionary improvements but no big >>revolutionary one.] Bob Hyatt, for example, seems to be saying that alpha/beta >>cannot be generalized. It's a dead end. "No room for revolutionary >>improvements there," according to Bob H. : ) > >I believe that there is a room for revolutionary improvements. >We only need good functions to find if a move is illogical in order to prune it. Most interesting!!! The position evaluations being: (a) primarily to decide whether or not to prune versus (b) evaluations to assess the value of the positions. My guess is that these are two very different kinds of evaluation, requiring very different kinds of code. I wonder about Crafty. Are those 4000 lines of source code primarily to decide whether or not to prune, or are they primarily to assess positions for their value? "To prune or not to prune . . . That is the question!" Shakespeare Bob D. <snip> >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.