On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Isaac Deutsch <i...@gmx.ch> wrote: > > > Well, I'll take that over crashing with an out-of-memory error. :) > > Still, pruning seems better to me and has the same effect. ;p
But is it better? I think it's not so obvious without thorough testing. Pruning throw away information that is lost forever and may need to be recalculated. Requiring more simulations does not throw out results, but results in some inefficiencies. So it's not clear to me which is better - it may even be that it depends on how much you push it. I am just guessing but I would guess that pruning is better in the short term, worse in the longer term. Imagine a search at a corespondence level, where the computer thinks for 24 hours. Which method is best there? Could you use hard disk or SSD? Using some kind of caching system, where you relegate the oldest unvisited nodes to the hard dirve. It may be that nodes you might normally prune are unlikely to get used again but if they do you still have the data. This is no good unless you can guarantee that the disk is used very infrequently - but with SSD it may be more practical. - Don > > -- > Nur bis 31.05.: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate und > Telefonanschluss nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
