Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 00:48:03 05/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 1998 at 14:20:58, Don Dailey wrote: >... >I've been considering this type of approach for a long time. I think >it definitely has merit. It would suffer from hash table anomolies >but there are ways to deal with this, the primary one to simply ignore >them. I see what you mean. The score of a position would also depend on the iteration (and not only on the distance to the "horizon"). Yes, a way out could be (a) ignore (?) or (b) init your hash table at start of a iteration (which seems cleaner but looks a little bit unfortunate cause of performance loss). > >There are a few issues to be dealt with but my feeling is that you >might do well with this scheme. Scoring might be a little fuzzy at >times but that might be ok. Probably the scheme would be to >pre-process at every level up to MAX_DEPTH-n, where n might be at >least 3 or 4 ply. Keep in mind that pre-processing is incredibly >expensive even compared to fully dynamic processing, so I suspect you >cannot get very close to the leaf nodes. Of course 3 or 4 ply away >might be considered pretty close if you were doing 14 ply searches. Yes, that's probably more reasonable than at half of the search depth. >... Thank you very much indeed for your detailled reply, Don. Certainly, the idea is quite natural. May be, other programmers have played with it or are using it. Your remarks sound quite encouraging. May be I'll soon give this a try. Regards, Uli
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.