Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 11:11:51 12/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2002 at 13:43:16, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 08, 2002 at 13:40:55, Dieter Buerssner wrote: > >>On December 08, 2002 at 12:58:53, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>I think that Crafty or yace are better than every engine without tranposition >>>table. >> >>Interesting comment. I wonder, how you came to this opinion. It may mean, that >>something in the transposition table implementation of my program goes really >>wrong. >I see that there is a misunderstanding and I did not explain myself clearly. > >I meant to say that crafty or yace with tranposition table are better than other >programs without tranposition table. I see it now. Indeed, I misunderstood your previous message. I do not know commercial engines well. Is it possible to let them run without transposition tables? How could one know it? For my engine, it would not be difficult, to still use a small transposition table, when the user gives "hash 0". But it won't. It would probably not be easy to detect. The quite famous Fine 70 position (and similar positions) may be able to give an answer. In this position, Yace can find the correct move, and a good PV with very few TT-table entries (in the order of magnitude of some thousands, which need less space than other datastructures in the program). Without TTs, the position seems practically unsolvable: [D] 8/k7/3p4/p2P1p2/P2P1P2/8/8/K7 w - - bm Kb1; c1 "Only move to win"; Regards, Dieter
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.