Author: Tony Werten
Date: 07:27:07 12/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 2001 at 10:01:23, guy haworth wrote: > >Thank you: I was not familiar with the publication of Urban Koistinen and have >followed your pointer to it. > >It is clear that the EGT-generation method of Wu/Beal predates the April 2001 >publication by UK. It seems that the WB-approach has been in the pipeline since >work at QMWC (London) started about 1994. > >It has been published in the International Systems Journal (2000) and in the >ICGA_J_v24.3 (Sept 2001). > > >For the record, you should note that the Wu/Beal method has two minor flaws, >easily spotted when used: > >a) accidentally omits to inherit subgame-wins-in 0 and 1 in DTC-mode > ... although this was clearly intended > >b) does not ensure that there are at least as many cycles as the max depth of a >subgame win. [ It is theoretically possible for the last cycle to have >discovered nothing new but there still to be subgame wins to inherit. ] > >Also, I suspect the Wu/Beal method does not make full use of bitmaps, minimising >the use of the depth-databases as much as possible (as per Ken Thompson, 1986). >John Tamplin proposes bitmaps for 'residual unknowns' as well as 'positions >resolved so far'. Anything that improves efficiency at 6-man level is good >news. > >So there are improvements to be made, even now. I think so to, but I have to admit that I don't understand Urbans paper completely. Now with Wu-Beals paper I understand more of it and I am wondering if he made the improvements Wu and Beal didn't. The WB paper just seems to touch a good idea without really seeing the possibilities. Tony > >G
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.