Author: Charles Roberson
Date: 17:00:57 01/01/06
Go up one level in this thread
Ah, now I understand your statement. I have two more thoughts on it. The first is your probability statement doesn't sound strong to me. The ordering of search trees make no guarantees on placement of the optimal solution. Thus, the last 30,000 nodes of 10,000,000 nodes could hold the optimal path. We use move ordering heuristics that we hope will put the optimal path early in the tree, but there are no guarantees, hence the use of the word heuristics. The second thought pertains to periodic updating vs real-time updates. Seems to me the main reason for periodic updates is to speedup the search process. This is a problem when the updates block each other, thus your solution is a reasonable thought. However, I do recall that Dr. Robert Hyatt and Tim Mann wrote a paper on a lockless method for updating. Such a method would reduce the penalty for realtime updates. From Dr. Hyatt's home page: Robert Hyatt and Timothy Mann (Compaq Computer Corp) "A lock-less transposition table implementation for parallel search chess engines," Journal of the International Computer Games Association, Vol. 25, No. 2, June 2002 (63-72).
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.