Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:59:23 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. > >-- >GCP Best first actually _does_ work well in games. Not in chess, particularly, at least so far. But that doesn't preclude it from working well in the future after a better way of picking/defining the "best" move is found... There is nothing that says that the "best first" selection algorithm is purely a static evaluation. In their case it is actually not, it is a 3-ply search by Crafty... So they are, in a way, combining both...
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.