Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:02:09 04/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 08, 2003 at 07:30:24, Bo Persson wrote: > >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! I agree, but when talking about minimal tree in the classic sense I (and I understand that this the common way) think of it as the best-case alpha-beta. As I understood the question, hashing was also to be ignored. Hashing is an addition to the move ordering that can be "disabled" (just like extensions and pruning), so you can measure move ordering relative to the "minimal tree". Hashing complicates matters "infinitely" here. :) -S. >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.