Author: Jay Scott
Date: 13:50:07 09/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 2002 at 17:19:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 12, 2002 at 15:53:39, Jay Scott wrote: >>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. > >I can see that failing when you suddenly discover that all _other_ moves drop >drastically due to a tactical threat that move actually prevents... :) Yeah. This idea makes storage decisions at a much coarser level of granularity than a hash table, so when it fails, it could be spectacular. Traditional chess program design has some impressively good properties that are hard to match--can't deny that!
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.