Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Why not a partial TB?

Author: Mark Longridge

Date: 12:26:30 01/27/01


We do something very similar to a tb in Rubik's Cube searches, we search for
optimal solutions to a specific position. We can't search the whole tree
(4.3x10^19 positions), but it's still interesting to find the optimal moves.

Why not make a partial tb for some interesting positions, where the starting
position is fixed, like we do for rubik's cube, and calculate that to the end.
Eventually you can go back and add more positions later.

I'm thinking this could work well with pawn only positions, like kppkppp or
something similar. I don't think calculating this to the end would be too hard,
or at least calculating to a winning position.

Eugene, what do you think? Could tbgen be easily modified to do this, or is it
not practical? Surely starting from one node with a pawns only position
shouldn't be too bad. Instead of searching back from mate, you could search back
from a canidate winning position.

My second idea was to hike up the position learning from 64K to something a lot
bigger for crafty. It doesn't seem to take too long to search through
position.bin, ditto for book learning... make it so it can learn new lines.
There doesn't seem to be any real limit on how big book.bin can get, but it
seems to me that my book.bin isn't getting any bigger, so I don't see where it
puts information on completely new opening moves.

A mate.bin might be an idea too. All the really deep mates which occur in real
games could be put in mate.bin, 24 hours of computer analysis could figure out a
lot deep mates from fixed positions.

Mark



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.