Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 08:07:27 09/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2001 at 09:10:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >Well if no one here manages to do that, who am i to say that the >remainder of this algorithm is worth trying? Perhaps just noone bothered? >Which means that APHID already says who has to search what before relevance >of parallel splitting has been indicated. Considering that nowadays we >use nullmove bigtime, this makes APHID completely outdated, because >it in short doesn't wait at all! They Crafty they used had nullmove R=2. Nowadays most people (I know you don't, but you aren't everybody even if you continously think so) use R=2/R=3. I'm pretty sure that isn't going to make the difference between usefull and useless. >This refers to the fact that YBW for each node needs a result for the >first move first before splitting other moves. Now this is of course very >true, but this directly also shows that APHIDs branching factor is by >definition bigger than algorithms which use YBW. I don't think they make any claims that their branching factor is better than YBW. Would seem pretty silly to me. But then again, YBW probably gets killed in different ways when having to deal with slow interprocess comms on a cluster. -- GCP
This page took 0.08 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.