Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 03:24:31 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 21:44:45, Bas Hamstra wrote: >Maybe you are right. But until he does (let's pray) I am not convinced that he >is the only one that could make SE work by some magical trick. That is: make it >work better than skipping >90% nonsense nodes. Well that is what I am trying to do. And I have been getting some decent results lately. But it's way different than what DB did. Logical, as the programs I am working with are also way different from DB. >>>We know they didn't prune. So they could have even been >>>stronger. >> >>Hello? How can you know this? The better your eval is the >>more pruning is going to hurt. > >Hi there! :-) Maybe you can explain this statement, because I don't see it. One >thing is for sure, if you ask me, with a lousy eval you get lousy pruning. Maybe I should have asked what kind of pruning first :) For sorts of futility pruning, this is my general observation which is confirmed by Vincent. For nullmove, thats a different matter. They thought they would get deep enough to beat Kasparov without it. And they were right. Considering that Kasparov is mainly a tactical player it seems an acceptable strategy not to miss _anything_ the first 10-12 plies and use loads of extensions, rather than use something tactically more risky to get a bit more strategical depth. If it lacked strategically, they could always add more eval. -- GCP
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.