Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:23:49 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 09:09:59, blass uri wrote: >On July 20, 2000 at 08:19:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 20, 2000 at 02:37:07, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On July 19, 2000 at 23:42:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 18, 2000 at 14:29:53, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 14:27:58, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 12:17:57, blass uri wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 12:10:57, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Let me clarify. Of course computers always look for the best move in attack, and >>>>>>>>also play the move they evaluate as as best. But when they see the evaluation >>>>>>>>going down, they will look perhaps a whole extra ply deeper in search of finding >>>>>>>>a way to bring the evaluation back up again. >>>>>>>> But if they see their evaluation going up, they do that move, sometimes very >>>>>>>>quickly, atleast they don't grind away labouriously trying to find something >>>>>>>>even better, even if the first "good move" is not all that good relatively. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>My knowledge is that Junior almost always finish the iteration of moves. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If it see the evaluation goes up it will usually not play without checking all >>>>>>>the other moves in the same iteration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Uri >>>>>> >>>>>>Hiarcs too, usually. But if it is losing, it just goes on and on thinking, for >>>>>>very long periods, letting its clock tick till quite near the end. >>>>>> If that would help it salvage the position, it would be time well spent. >>>>> >>>>>Hiarcs is the only program that I know that does it. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>Crafty will do it also... >>> >>>I meant to the fact that hiarcs does not finish the iteration of moves when it >>>fails low but does another iteration. >>> >> >> >>That has _got_ to be wrong. Why on earth would anyone write a search that >>would fail low, and then start a new iteration (that it might not have a chance >>of searching even the first move on) without first checking all of the remaining >>moves at this iteration to see if one will bring the score back up? > >I see that I explained myself wrong. > >I meant to the fact that hiarcs does not *only* finish the iteration of moves >when it fails low but does another iteration. > >I did not put the words only and this is the reason for the misynderstanding. > >Uri Ok... in that case it makes sense. That is why I never stop an iteration until time runs out. Because most of the time, I finish iteration N, and start N+1 but never get anything back. But in the case of a fail low, which is the easiest kind of search to execute, the fail low happens very quickly, which then triggers using more time to see what is happening and possibly repair things...
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.