Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 07:49:07 10/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2002 at 09:02:25, Ingo Lindam wrote: >On October 27, 2002 at 20:21:34, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>Similarly, in the middle of [in the gory guts of] a search algorithm, maybe >some of the positions occuring during the search could be evaluated the same >>way. In >>a purely serial machine [no parallel processing] I fear that the time required >>for this computation might not leave enough time for the rest of the search. In >>other words, "not competitive." If you are going serial, you have a big >>challenge to make your engine competitive with current engines which do not [?] >>use your idea. Parallel processing is another matter, given the requisite >>technology. > >Perhaps ... or perhaps not... ofcourse I would appreciate to divide the work of >evaluation on a lot of parallel processors and the approach gives ofcourse some >natural oportunities to divide it. But unfortunately I don't have access on a >massive parallel system yet... so I have to watch how far I may come without it. >An advantage of the approach might be to cut off a lot of the big tree and then >have to compute much less nodes by using the knowledge. > >>Am I still at least "out in left field" on this one? [Still in the ballpark?] > >Yes, you should still be in the ball park... because I am here in the infield >catching your balls you throw towards me. > >>You envision producing a "black box" with inputs and outputs. The inputs would >>consist of one or two million master level chess games. The outputs would be a >>large set of patterns with associated properties &/or other useful data. >> >>Right? [If yes, then how?] > >Imagine... (hear the music) >Imagine, you spend a little more storage to represent the positions of the 2 >million games that might be about 100 million positions in a data structure that >allows you to have an efficient access on the information in which positions a >pattern occurs. Now assume a and b to be pattern for wich you already know in >which positions they occure. Then it is a very easy and efficient to obtain >question in which positions the pattern c1 = a AND b and in which the pattern c2 >= a OR b occur. This can be obtained very very fast. And when you now further >can use the fact that in chess you may a very unequal number of 0s and 1s in >this representation you might save again a lot of storage and time. > >Ingo Hmmm. You are out of my league at this point. Alas! I am not a programmer. [Just a retired engineer.] I hope some of the computer chess gurus will choose to pick up the discussion of the technical programming aspects of this topic. I admit my limitations. Best wishes, Bob D.
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.