Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:26:09 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2000 at 14:52:48, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: >On January 25, 2000 at 14:37:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>B* certainly didn't use SE. > >The B* driver not, of course. But the version we played employed >the normal alpha-beta "Hitech" to perform the necessary probe >searches of 2-3 plies. If the normal "Hitech" did singular >extensions, then the probe searches of "Hitech B*" ought to have >done them too. Actually, it was the pb-B* version of "Hitech B*" >that we played. > >>Generally SE is dangerous in endgames as well, as too much gets extended, and >>the overhead isn't worth the effort spent... > >Right. > >>so it is likely what you played had no SE of any kind... > >Yes, I strongly suppose so. > >>I do remember that he originally asked some of your group to develop a fast >>engine for him to produce the bounds that B* needs, didn't he??? > >Yes, but somehow Markus and I (especially) were not the right kind >of people to cooperate with him. We obviously had too much of an >ego ourselves and Berliner was not able to cope with this fact. > That was a surprise to you? :) After the story of my 'problem' with him? :) Not to mention Marty Hirsch's problem with him? And who knows who else, of course. :) >>That should put a >>time-frame for dropping the original hitech with SE in favor of B*. > >Not really, because the original "Hitech" was already dropped somehow >in favour of pb-B*. > >=Ernst= I remember this happening. I just don't remember when, as I wasn't particularly interested in a hardware design that was obviously done wrong. I remember the ACM program info mentioning this at some point... I want to think between 90 and 92, but I simply don't remember...
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.