Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:39:22 09/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2003 at 17:54:17, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 19, 2003 at 16:58:57, Dieter Buerssner wrote: > >>On September 19, 2003 at 15:55:41, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>WAC 230. >>>As far as I know, it still isn't really decided if the key move really leads to >>>a win. I saw some convincing draw argumentation. I would really like to know >>>once and for all if it is a draw or not. >> >>I fear, without going deeper into the line(s), even 500 CPUs will not be able to >>give a definite answer, even after hours. > >Perhaps Vincent's program will trace along the pv. >In one scheduling algorithm I am considering, one processor will follow the >current PV and play at twice the rate of the root processor. The notion is to hopefully you won't call that a new parallel searching algorithm :) >fill the hash table with forward data and also to spot potentially deep >problems. >At any rate, I would like to see what his program might come up with. >The nolot positions would be another natural set, along with the more difficult >positions from LCT II. jeez some tactical positions, not that i blame you personally to this, but it is typical that this is all the whole computerchess community can come up with. A few tactical positions for a 2003 program. Even Johan de Koning has thrown out shitloads of extensions last couple of years. I bet some of his old versions solve the beancounter positions way faster than current versions do at the same hardware. Why would that be? :) Best regards, Vincent Best regards, Vincent
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.