Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:47:09 11/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2000 at 19:06:29, Peter Fendrich wrote: >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 The reason is simply for analysis of correspondence games. I generate a small tree of moves and I want to use the evaluations after search in the leaves of the tree to decide about my move. If I use a preprocessor I cannot compare between the evaluation in different leaves because they are based on different tables. If I do not use a preprocessor I can do it. Uri
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.