Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:21:21 12/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2002 at 12:17:27, Bob Durrett wrote: >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? In Crafty They are only to assess positions for their value. 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.