Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 09:58:07 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 10:03:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. So there is no free 4 ply evaluation at all. Makes sense. Must have misunderstood in the past. Ed
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.