Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:16:48 01/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2001 at 06:31:42, David Rasmussen wrote: >On January 05, 2001 at 23:42:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 05, 2001 at 14:41:51, David Rasmussen wrote: >> >>>I was wondering why some of the clever ideas I've been reading about, aren't >>>used in the programs I know of. >>> >>>ETC, Enhanced Transposition Cutoff, seems like a very good idea and have been >>>tested to perform well in practice. Why isn't it used? >>> >>>I can't think of any more ideas right now... >> >> >>I tried it a long while back when Jonathan Schaeffer suggested it to me. I >>didn't have any success with it. It made the tree about 10% smaller, but the >>extra work offset that almost exactly. As a result, it was no real improvement > >If it balances out at relatively shallow searches, wouldn't it mean that it >would actually be better in deep searches? I mean, that overhead is constant, >but 10% of the nodes is a scalable improvement. Also, did you remember not to do >it at th last 2-4 plies? (of course you did, just asking) > >>and I decided to stick with KISS... > >Don't we all ;) > >Oh, BTW, what is KISS? Keep It Simple, Stupid. :)
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.