[rc5] v3

Mark Beeson mark at emerald.net
Mon Oct 27 12:00:08 EST 1997

Ryan Krueger wrote:
> I think that we need to start "thinking" about all possible moves.  Then
> reporting them.  As the game progresses, entire chunchs of the search
> space that has already been searched will be discarded because the game
> didn't progress that way.  But by the same token, a small portion will
> have been searched already--THIS IS WHERE WE CAN GET AHEAD OF DEEP BLUE!
> As soon as a move is completed, we have a head start on the search.

As a bit of a chess study, I find myself thinking that a distributed
chess engine is actually quite a good idea.  Deep Blue's advantage was
not only speed, but that it had an enormous library of games that it had
"played" against itself.  Why can't distributed.net do this?  We don't
even need to schedule any games against any other players.  Simply build
up a database (albeit enormous one) of _all_possible_moves_.  Yes, this
is a huge number (perhaps larger than RC5-128?), but then again there
are chunks of moves that we simply don't need to process (who really
moves 1. a2-a4?).  If we eliminate these trees, that's a lot of moves
eliminated from our search.

Once we've built up a large database of "this is the best move in this
position", then we can go ahead and schedule games, and those
smug-looking bastards who gloated over Kasparov can take some of their
own medicine when the distributed.net "machine" rolls over Deep Blue in
the course of a few minutes.

Mark Beeson
Lead Developer, EmeraldNet Inc.
mark at emerald.net
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.

More information about the rc5 mailing list