Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Is there really any good alternative to alfa-beta search?

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 07:25:14 06/10/98

Go up one level in this thread



On June 09, 1998 at 14:08:46, Christophe Theron wrote:

>On June 09, 1998 at 04:47:18, Ernst A. Heinz wrote:
>
>>On June 09, 1998 at 04:11:18, Jouni Uski wrote:
>>
>>>According to CSS magazine 2/98 Ulf Lorenz program P.Conners works
>>>without alfa-beta search and is still good (tactically very good).
>>>And it doesn't need any hash tables!
>>
>>"P.Conners" is based on "parallel controlled conspiracy number search"
>>(PCCNS) which needs *much* more memory than any standard alpha-beta with
>>transposition tables because it keeps the whole search tree in RAM ...
>>
>>As for tactical power, any decent program running on 40x P-II 266MHz
>>should not be too weak in this respect, should it?
>>
>>=Ernst=
>
>ICCA Journal says P.CoNNerS was running on 24 Pentiums. What is the
>right number? 40 or 24?
>
>Was it really PII-266 Pentiums?

At paderborn (i joined there) i was told 32 PII-300 SDRAM cpu's.

It was a nice try for a new search algorithm, but when analyzing the
games i'd say it failed against Shredder clearly.

It should have seen that mating attack.

For a first version however such a result is a major success,
considering
that so far very little is known about searching best first search.

Only some vague theorems.

In diep i use alfabeta pruning too. Don't see how to do without it.
You CAN search best first, like i try, but what if you use alfabeta
pruning,
aren't you then simply an alfabeta program with some more extensions?

>    Christophe

Vincent



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.