Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Everything you know is wrong

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 06:19:59 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 08:47:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On December 18, 2002 at 08:29:17, Sune Fischer wrote:
>>On December 18, 2002 at 07:47:01, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>Right he has wrongly split it in order to avoid even the worst proofreader
>>>from smelling the truth.
>>Or to hide the real truth, that it stabilises the search and will be really
>>really great in games :)
>>>>First he designs an algorithm to make a smaller tree and then he verifies that
>>>>it's also better (solving more positions).
>>>In neither of the 2 tests the algorithm is superb. So he could not
>>>draw the conclusion that verification search is better. *no way*.
>>IIRC the conclusion was that it was better than R=2 and that R=2 was better than
>>R=3. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>>>Those are very though demands, you _can_ get an overall improvement by say,
>>>>searching 5% more nodes but in return get far less instability in your search.
>>>He doesn't hash whether he has done a verification, so his implementation
>>>for sure is buggy. I wonder why proofreaders didn't see that.
>please read what i answerred very clearly to a reply Uri wrote here.
>I do not like repeating myself 10 times here.
>I very clearly explained it to Uri what the bug is elsewhere in a
>writing here.

Yes but it is not clear if you are correct.
You say that he does not hash but he did not publish source code but only pseudo
code so we do not know if you are correct.

I find that for movei that does not use hash tables for pruning verification
search is clearly something that worth considering.


This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.