Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:03:53 01/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2001 at 05:32:26, Steffen Jakob wrote:
>On January 25, 2001 at 14:11:36, Peter McKenzie wrote:
>
>>On January 25, 2001 at 08:20:26, David Rasmussen wrote:
>>
>>>Howdy.
>>>
>>>Inspired by the thread on extensions, I was wondering whether the idea of
>>>negative extensions or reductions could be a good one.
>>>
>>>I mean, maybe many of the "unsound" pruning methods would be sounder if, instead
>>>of just pruning, they just adjusted the resulting depth down. In that way, a
>>>line would still be examined, only later.
>>
>>Hi, in the past I have thought of negative extensions too although I haven't
>>tried implementing them yet. I wouldn't consider nullmove to be a negative
>>extension, its not really in the spirit of an extension - I'd just call it a
>>pruning method.
>>
>>In my mind, extensions are usually a move based thing. By this I mean that we
>>can see some property of the move we have just played (or are just about to
>>play, depending on exactly how you implement the extension) which indicates that
>>we should extend. Obvious examples are
>>- check extension
>>- recapture extension
>>- single response extension
>>- passed pawn push extension
>>
>>So the question is, what sort of moves could be candidates for a negative
>>extension?
>
>Some underpromotions.
>
>Greetings,
>Steffen.
I seem to remember that you have suggested this some months ago.
I have tried and found that it was doing exactly nothing to the playing
strength. So the idea does not look bad, but it does not help at all.
Christophe
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.