Author: ed
Date: 19:43:55 10/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
>One point: repeat after me slowly: "there is no way for alpha/beta to produce >a best move, a second-best move and a third-best move, without tripling the >time it takes to complete the search..." I understood this the *very* first time you mentioned it, and I have completely no disagreement here. I am not an ex-programmer for nothing, you know. :) >There are approximations. IE you get the best move at ply=10, but then it is >replaced later by a better move at ply=10... you can show both PVs and say >they are the best two. Or you can save the ply=9 pvs too, but that is much >less accurate. This is *exactly* my whole point. The moves can indeed be saved. Sure, the given alternatives moves are less than optimal, but at least, I will know what the 2nd, 3rd.. nth.. best moves are. This will give me some ideas to bounce around. >Or you can do it the correct way: search all moves, save the best as "#1", >then remove that move from the move list, and search all the moves except that >one again. That gets #2. Repeat as often as you want, knowing that each >search will take about as long as the previous one, since the best move takes >90% of the total time... This correct way however doesn't sound like an optimal way to use CPU cycles, so I will just assume that practically speaking no one will ever implement this. :)
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.