Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:22:04 05/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2002 at 15:12:51, William H Rogers wrote:
>On May 07, 2002 at 13:44:10, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On May 07, 2002 at 11:11:38, William H Rogers wrote:
>>
>>>On May 06, 2002 at 22:38:01, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You mean that Sargon I was using a SEE?
>>>>
>>>>Because as far as I know Sargon II and the next versions were not. They were
>>>>using a real QSearch instead, which made them much stronger.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>What Sargon I did with its exchange evaluator is to compile a list of all hits
>>>on square and then see had the most control it or its opponent. Very
>>>rudentmentary at most. It was very much like that proposed by David Levy in one
>>>of his earliest books on chess functions.
>>
>>
>>So I guess it was only used at the root of the search?
>>
>>I think it would have been too expensive to use deeper in the search?
>
>Why do you think that Sargon 1 ran so slow? They learned a lot after that and
>Sargon 2 was much better and faster.
I know it was slow because in the eighties I owned a TRS-80 and also owned both
Sargon I and Sargon II.
I still have the original Sargon II cassette at the office.
I know from experience that using a SEE at the leaves on a TRS-80 would have
been too slow. I know because my first chess program ran on the TRS-80 and was
using a SEE at the leaves (it was written in Z80 assembly).
It would take 5 or 10 minutes to get to ply depth 3... :-(
Christophe
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.