Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:27:20 04/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2003 at 15:39:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 06, 2003 at 15:36:07, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On April 06, 2003 at 15:26:34, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On April 06, 2003 at 11:00:25, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On April 06, 2003 at 09:55:19, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 06, 2003 at 09:48:56, Ian Kennedy wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>There is no qsearch. What exactly do you mean by 'what evaluation function do >>>>>>you use'? >>>>> >>>>>then this renders your experiments to useless, because experiments with a >>>>>gametree that suffer from horizon effects which get backupped to the root are >>>>>completely useless for obvious reasons. >>>>> >>>>>Why not measure something in the game of 4 connect? No need for a qsearch there. >>>>>No need for nullmove. >>>> >>>>That game was solved in 1988. >>>> >>>>If you want to play it in demensions that were not solved then >>>>I do not understand why no need for qsearch and null moves. >>>> >>>>I think that qsearch can help in that game and when the side that moved threats >>>>to win in the next move then you can extend preventing him to win in the qsearch >>>>until no side threats to win or can win in the next move. >>> >>>that's too slow in 4 connect. Faster is searching at 10 million nps a second >>>fullwidth using iterative deepening. >> >>I do not think that it is faster if the target is to play and not solve the game >>and the dimension of the board is not so small to do it a solved problem. >>by searching 10 miliion nps a second. > >>suppose for the discussion that the board is 99*99. > >Assume for the discussion it's 7x6 as it's 7x6 and not 99x99. > >Don't hide between excuses by changing the rules!! If it is 7*6 then the game was already solved in 1988 so there is no point for a new program. 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.