Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: What is

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.