Author: KarinsDad
Date: 11:12:08 03/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 2000 at 13:19:54, Andrew Dados wrote: [snip] >> >>Interesting idea. Do any programs actually do this? >> >>-Tom > >I doubt it would work. >For most of searches (interrupted due to time elapsed, or not) I get only one PV >for given depth. >If I get more then one, then: either I got better move then previous, or >previous best failed low (this case we can disregard here of course). And >somehow I doubt there are 'do nothing' moves in PV for move which just failed >high (except for maybe pushing loss beyond horizon, and doing some extra checks >or captures for that). > >In other words: if my PV does not care about making progress, it would not fail >high over previous best move (or it would fail high at lower depths, so for this >depth I get only one PV still). > >All that is only 'feeling', not an attempt to prove it... >-Andrew- I think it will work. In fact, my program is attempting to use it. And, I have been diligently working on my program, so I may get to prove it shortly. The problem is in how your program calculates a PV. If you changed the name to GL (good line) from PV in your thinking and how your program works, you may conceptualize better how much your program has to change in order to come up with a series of GLs as opposed to coming up with one PV. The changes are not trivial (at least I would not expect them to be so if you did not design your program in the first place to do this type of thing). KarinsDad :)
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.