Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: The reason that gandalf is a good program for analysis

Author: Peter Fendrich

Date: 16:06:29 11/23/00

Go up one level in this thread


On November 23, 2000 at 16:10:54, Uri Blass wrote:

>On November 23, 2000 at 12:33:12, Peter Fendrich wrote:
>
>>On November 22, 2000 at 12:10:18, Uri Blass wrote:
>>

-- snip --

>>In my program Terra, there are some bitboard tables working like that but I
>>don't consider Terra being a preprocessor.
>>
>>//Peter
>
>If you do not consider terra to be a preprocessor then what is your defintion of
>preprocessor?
>
>I thought that all preprocessors work exactly in this way and the way to avoid
>being a preprocessor is simply to calculate the relevant tables in every node
>that you evaluate(you can save the tables in the memory but you need to
>calculate which table to use).
>
>Uri

I'm not sure about the right definition. It's about how the tables are used, I
suppose. Some programs (at least in the history) uses preprocessing as a clear
strategy to avoid as much end-node evaluation as possible. If the reason is more
mixed and the usage of the tables depends of the end-node position this is not
so clear to me anymore. Of course you could say that every rootnode change to
affecting evaluation and search behaviour is preprocessing but what is it worth?
"Every" definition is supporting some kind of purpose so my question is: why do
you want to classify programs in preprocessors and not?
//Peter



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.