Author: Tony Werten
Date: 11:05:56 12/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2002 at 14:00:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 28, 2002 at 12:31:01, Alessandro Damiani wrote: > >>On December 28, 2002 at 12:15:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On December 28, 2002 at 11:18:58, Alessandro Damiani wrote: >>> >>>>On December 28, 2002 at 10:10:53, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>> >>>>>It seems Ed Schröder has added a bit more to his web page: >>>>> >>>>>http://members.home.nl/matador/chess840.htm#SEARCH >>>>> >>>>>I have the feeling that ES will be getting a lot of thank yous for quite awhile >>>>>for his fine contributions to computer chess. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks again! >>>> >>>>It seems to me that there are two typos in the following code: >>> >>>it's not about the source code. It's about the idea. >>>Any sort of pseudo code gets accepted then. Definitely >>>by me. >> >>I am talking about the pseudo code Ed published on his homepage (pseudo code is >>still code). I don't understand your statement in this context. >> >> >>> >>>Of course do not forget that these reductions are very dangerous >>>to use in combination with nullmove and that as Ed describes them >>>they completely rape your hashtable. A depth stored as 'n depth left' >>>might be in reality n+1. You need to add a bit and some code for >>>transpositions to the hashtable in order to fix that. >>> >> >>My new variant of ABC uses depth reductions instead of extensions. So I am >>looking at the difference between Ed's reductions and mine. I don't use >>conventional null-move yet. >> >>There is a doctoral thesis by Thomas Barth which describes how depth reductions >>work fine with a hashtable. His work is from 1988. >> >>Alessandro > >I do not know the work of Barth here, but i know that without >modifying the hashtable you run into trouble a lot. > >In the 90s several publications from Feldmann ignored the hashtable >problem with his Fail High reductions. > >Note that though the implementation detail of Ed seems small compared >to the FHR concept of Feldmann, the implementation of Ed is practically >working a lot better. > >It's conceptual the same thing of course. I can't remember so quickly >whether Feldmann did them also non recursively. No, he allowed them recursive. That's why it sucked. That is time to solution, because you need more ply. Nodes to depth, it looked great. (Just like randomly skipping moves ) Tony
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.