Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 14:36:17 11/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2002 at 20:05:17, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On November 22, 2002 at 19:57:40, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On November 22, 2002 at 17:43:13, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On November 22, 2002 at 17:29:35, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On November 22, 2002 at 07:26:02, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>I expect it to do better at longer times too of course, for the reason >>>>>pointed out in this thread than it becomes more comparable to R=3. R=3 is >>>>>superior in Deep Sjeng compared to verified R=3, so as verified gets >>>>>closer to R=3, it will do better, but I don't expect it to do >>>>>"better than R=3". >>>>> >>>>>I have different testing priorities right now because in any case it >>>>>looks vastly inferior to what I am doing now (not R=3 and not R=2/3). >>>> >>>>What are you doing now? >>> >>>Ultra-Secret-Commercial-Hyper-Mega-Pruning-Technique XBHY-356 >>> >>>:) >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >>So you're not going to write it up and publish it? > >No. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it - it's not really fair >to Omir as he does publish his stuff. > >But I am contemplating publishing another method that will yield both >smaller tree sizes and more solutions for a fixed depth. > >I call it 'disable lazy evaluation'. > >From what I've read here, the ICCA would accept it right away. > Well GCP, we are both 20. We have enough time to find many algorithms and improvements. Why not publish some of them? :-) Just kidding; if you are going commercial soon, then I don't recommend you to publish your "Ultra-Secret-Commercial-Hyper-Mega-Pruning-Technique XBHY-356" idea. Just the "Infra-Public-Freeware-Hypo-Mini-BruteForce-Technique AAAA-000"? >-- >GCP
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.