Author: José Antônio Fabiano Mendes
Date: 04:19:13 10/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 2001 at 23:55:01, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On October 03, 2001 at 16:51:49, Torstein Hall wrote:
>
>>On October 03, 2001 at 16:10:43, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On October 03, 2001 at 16:02:26, Torstein Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>>What if you run two paralelle search/chess processes. One going very fast with
>>>>very little evaluation. The other going slow, with a big evaluation. The fast
>>>>one always start searching on the move calculated by the slow process with the
>>>>big evaluation, just checking for big materiall loss, tactical stupidities
>>>>further down the tree. If it find one, the fast process sends a message goes
>>>>back to the slow process and tells it do start work on the next best move.
>>>>
>>>>Then you perhaps can have the best from two "worlds". Intelligent search, with
>>>>no tactical blunders!
>>>>
>>>>Torstein
>>>
>>>
>>>Read Jonathan Schaeffer's reports on "Sun Phoenix". He did exactly that.
>>>But he did it because he was not getting a very good distributed speedup
>>>on larger numbers of processors. So some did a normal chess search together
>>>as a group, the rest ran a tactical searcher called "minix". Minix was used
>>>to refute moves chosen by the positional program.
>>>
>>>The problem is trying to rationalize the knowledgeable search vs the tactical
>>>search. If the tactical search says your positional move loses material, what
>>>do you do? Propose another move? And if _that_ loses material? The search
>>>becomes hugely inefficient...
>>
>>If the tactical search says you lose material, of course you have to change the
>>next best move, and so on. But that limit can perhaps be even more than a pawn?
>>And of course if all the first moves in your oredering are very bad, it do not
>>matter that much if you are not very effective. You are probably already
>>loosing!
>
>Maybe not. What if you are two pawns up. And the tactical search discovers
>that at deeper depths, the proposed best move loses one pawn. And you keep
>trying other moves and they keep getting rejected. And you finally discover
>that you are going to end up one pawn ahead rather than two. But now you have
>burned 10X the search time you should have used, and you can't go deeper, and
>you overlook the fact that you are playing a move that really loses far more
>than one pawn.
>
>That is the killer...
>
>>
>>Anyway, its another approach, and I find the consept intriguing.
>>Can I find Jonathan Schaffer's report on Sun Phoenix on the net somewhere?
>>
>>Torstein
Not exactly what you want,but (hopefully) a step in the right direction:
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/
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.