Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:58:29 09/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2002 at 14:22:04, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 11, 2002 at 13:36:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I don't think what they did was _that_ bad. >> >>Best-first search is a known search algorithm, and it has a known >>weakness that they cover early on. Their randomized approach is one >>way to attempt to minimize that weakness. > >IMHO the approach is fundamentally flawed. > >We use the search to cover what we cannot evaluate. The main goal >of the search is discover where the evaluation is not correct. > >Their approach is contrary to this - therefore I suspect it >will never work well in actual games. I saw a serious flaw in the algorithm -- when they search for the opponent response. They examine *only* the best current opponent response to see if they can reduce it. Therefore, if it stays about the same, they will never see a better opponent response. Hence, the algorithm (as printed) has an enormous blind side. The think that I thought was interesting was: 1. That it works at all (I wonder how that comes about?) 2. That there is definitely a linear improvement in new CPUs and 64 CPUs is almost exactly twice as good as 32 CPUs. I think that is pretty astonishing, and so however it is that communication happens between nodes should be tried in other systems.
This page took 0.01 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.