Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 16:17:30 06/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2000 at 17:30:33, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On June 19, 2000 at 17:03:49, José Carlos wrote: > >>On June 19, 2000 at 16:54:46, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On June 19, 2000 at 16:27:58, John Coffey wrote: >>> >>>>Let us say that I have a system with not much RAM, like the Gameboys that I >>>>program. Transposition tables are out of the question. The Gameboy Advanced >>>>(16 mhz risc processor) has 1/4 meg available as an option that can be placed on >>>>an external cartridge, but I figure that is not enough to do anything. >>> >>>256k is a terrific size for a hash table, esp. if the processor is 16mhz. >>> >>>>Here is what I am thinking for a chess program: Iterative iterative deeping. >>>>If I have a 7 play search, and I am at ply 4 deep, it would still do a 1 ply >>>>followed by a 2 ply folled by 3 ply to finish that branch of the tree. >>>> >>>>Of course I would give priority to checks and some captures. >>>> >>>>Would it help? >>> >>>If you think about it, searching 1 ply at each leaf of a 6 ply search is exactly >>>the point of searching 7 ply. >>> >>>-Tom >> >> I think he means this: >> >> - Seaching ply 7. >> - 4 plys remaining to get to leaves. >> - How to get a "hash table move"?: Search this ply as a root_4_ply search, >>recursively reducing depth and researching all below depths every time (sorry >>for my english speaking :)) >> >> It seems like an interesting idea, but I don't think it will work. Instead, >>I'd simply use a killers heuristic. Cheap and clean. >> >> José C. > >Ah, I believe this is internal iterative deepening. I haven't implemented it >before, but as I understand it, if you're searching the PV and you don't have a >good move for move ordering, you do a small search to get one. The small search >will recurse and do a smaller search, so there's the iterative deepening part. That's an accurate description. The thing is that he is wondering about doing it in _all_ cases, whether he has a good move for ordering or not. I think it sounds like an interesting experiment, but it seems almost like you're searching backward through the tree (from the leaves to the root), and how to avoid tree explosions that way?
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.