Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 14:43:11 10/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2003 at 18:17:33, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On September 30, 2003 at 18:02:45, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On September 30, 2003 at 17:37:27, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >> >>>On September 30, 2003 at 16:49:41, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>PVS = Negascout >>> >>>I don't think so. See http://www.zib.de/reinefeld/bib/83icca.pdf >>>To me the unique thing about Negascout is to avoid those reasearches that >>>initially returned scores out of bounds close to the leaf. Of course, I think >>>that Negascout will not work in most chess engines (which use pruning, >>>extensions, qsearch, etc.) but only in a fixed depth environment. >> >>For any practical implementation you have to drop the optimization >>and they become identical. > >Indeed. And I see no reason to call it Negascout anymore then. I think PVS (with >the main idea of the zero window searches) was introduced by Marsland. Reinefeld >found (for fixed depth searches) that one can do better, and avoid the >researches close to the leaves. Reinefeld called his algorithm Negascout. > >Perhaps, I got the history wrong here. I think, one should not call a PVS >algorithm (with those zero window searches) Negascout, when one does not use the >"optimization" introduced by Reinefeld. And of course, practically, that >optimization is useless for most engines (I guess). > >Regards, >Dieter Well, we generally refer to it as PVS here. But then, Tony Marsland is one of my supervisors. ;-) Dave
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.