Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:07:07 04/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 08, 2003 at 07:30:24, Bo Persson wrote: >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. AFAIK aske plaat didn't use a quiescencesearch which is a major rancune in any research done. >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.