Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:05:00 07/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 1999 at 13:05:23, Francis Monkman wrote: > >On July 18, 1999 at 12:56:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>The idea sounds attractive, until you realize that the game tree search is >>an exponential problem, not a linear one..... That makes it _very_ difficult >>for such a task to be done on computers... > >But why not treat the computers as nodes in a tree, with sub-delegation >software? (Just a thought -- but I built a working parallel audio synthesizer >out of multiple TMS99000s back in '84, so I've been 'thinking parallel' for a >while -- though not in chess. That's why I thought of you. Hope you don't mind) > >Say the machines are in a pool. Starting from root, one machine picks the next n >(=number of legal moves) machines' addresses. Then they in turn pick 'em off the >stack, and so on. Crazy? > >Francis Here's why it has a problem. Take a typical middlegame with roughly 35 moves. If you have 1000 computers, you can go two half-moves into the future and search those 1000 (35*35 roughly) positions. However, this is not very efficient as alpha/beta needs the score for the 'best' (first) move before searching any of the other moves... it is very difficult...
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.