Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:03:47 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 03:07:42, Ed Schröder wrote: >On January 25, 2000 at 23:57:33, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: > >>> In a one by one setting it does not matter at all. >> >>Still not convinced: a quiescence node that produces a direct >>"stand pat" cutoff obviously generates less work than one >>which fails to do so -- even in hardware! *** QED *** >> >>Or am I missing something? >> >>=Ernst= > >Something else... I always wondered about this free 4-ply evaluation. I >can understand that evaluation for the current position done in hardware >is possible in a few cycles. I can't understand this also to be true for >4 plies as it should involve: search, hash table, q-search etc. In other >words a complete chess program. > >Ed They didn't do this as you describe. The chess processor did a traditional alpha/beta search to a depth of 4 (this was user-settable, but going deeper in the hardware meant going shallower in software) followed by a traditional quiescence search and _then_ the hardware evaluation. This means that the 4 ply search is _not_ done in 10 clocks... only the evaluation. The 4 ply search takes a variable amount of time depending on the position.
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.