Author: Bo Persson
Date: 04:30:24 04/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 07, 2003 at 16:32:10, Sune Fischer wrote: >On April 07, 2003 at 15:51:50, Dan Andersson wrote: > >> Problem was that what you have suggested is suboptimal. Why they are >>suboptimal, improvements and fundamental problems are discussed in those papers. >>Why not use the knowledge already accumulated instead of starting from scratch? >>Nothing wrong with being sceptical of prior work. But to be ingnorant of them is >>wasteful. >> >>MvH Dan Andersson > >Could you be perhaps a bit more specific? >In what way is it not optimal, what do you want me to look for, on what page >where? > >Otherwise you're sending me off to a find a needle in a haystack. > >I'm not even sure we are discussing the same thing, you seem to talk about >theoritical calculations and compressions schemes, and that's not even remotely >connected to the original question. > >-S. One of the things Aske Plaat discusses is that the "minimal tree" isn't the minimum! With hashing it is possible to get a search tree that is actually smaller than the alpha-beta theoretical limit. If you search with variable depth, a non-uniform branching factor, hashing, and null-moves, etc, reaching 1.21x the minimal tree MIGHT not be good enough, when it in fact COULD be possible to reach maybe 0.8x the "minimal tree". We don't know. That is a problem! Bo Persson bop2@telia.com
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.