Author: Jay Scott
Date: 12:53:39 09/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2002 at 17:53:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >How are you not going to store the tree when it is, by definition, "best >first"? Heh. By not being best-first everywhere, as you know perfectly well. :-) In this paper, they used a short depth-first search as an "evaluation function" for the best-first search, so the stored best-first tree is only a tiny part of the entire tree that is searched. That's what I meant. Other methods are possible too. For example, you may be able to discover (especially taking your time limit into account) that a certain subtree that has already been searched is unlikely to be (or to be discovered to be) any good. "That move looked OK at first, but now I'm almost certain it's awful!" That storage can be recovered immediately, and the stump marked "do not search again". A full-up "rational search" would take into account memory costs as well as time costs, and trade them off continuously against move quality.
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.