Author: Adrien Regimbald
Date: 08:31:10 08/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hello, >Agreed. I don't use guesswork pruning algorithms so that I know my analysis is >correct. My method applies whatever searching algorithm/pruning you employ. I >use pv-enhanced negamax with a-b and hash tables etc... and so I can guarantee >to see every mate down to a certain ply. You don't have to do brute force - a-b >pruning is tactically sound. I was about to say "Yeah, I guess if you don't use anything like null move, etc then you could be right" .. but then I saw that you use hash tables :P I don't think that I have to point out to you that the very fact that you're using hash tables means you can't guarantee that your search is 100% inaccurate .. due to possible collisions. >All I'm claiming is that my method reduces the search time by a negligible >amount *regardless of algorithms employ to actually do the search* and it >occasionally results in enormous speed increases. > >Take this position for example; > >[D]4Q3/2p3p1/7p/p1k1B3/2p1P2P/2P3P1/1r2q3/6K1 w - - > >which ColChess searches *fully* to depth 13 ply in just over 3 seconds on my >p3-450. It is a mate in 9. Crafty sees the mate quite early because of its >advanced extensions, but after 30 seconds had still only just reached 11 ply in >its search. There are probably better examples where Crafty can't see the mate, >and I unfortunately can't remember the board setup before this position, which I >know to be one of them. Well, that is a very impressive gain .. but I'm curious - does it hurt ColChess overall to be doing this? Regards, Adrien.
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.