Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:49:13 11/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2002 at 16:07:15, martin fierz wrote: >On November 04, 2002 at 13:08:13, Dan Andersson wrote: > >>But there was an option of having some hash there. And even if it was >>impossible. Near perfect move ordering can be achieved anyway. Half depth search >>and heuristics does it well. Deep tactics will be missed, but it would probably >>be missed in any case. >> >>MvH Dan Andersson > >hash is not an option because if you want to search trillions of nodes/sec, you >cannot wait for a slow memory read... > >aloha > martin I suspect that if you can search trillions of node/second by a single processor than the memory is always going to be fast. You also do not need to remember every position in the hash tables and remembering part of the positions is enough to get a significant improvement. Speed+Selective search+Hash may solve chess(at least people cannot prove that it cannot solve chess) We do not need to know the exact distance to mate in order to be sure that white is winning after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qh4 and there are a lot of positions that it may be possible to save the analysis. Uri
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.