Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: pruning vs extensions vs qsearch - are these all effectively the sam

Author: Dave Gomboc

Date: 14:36:22 11/28/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 27, 2002 at 15:58:29, David Rasmussen wrote:

>On November 27, 2002 at 14:28:17, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>
>>
>>IMO, q-search is an anachronism and should be abolished!
>>
>
>Why and why?


I posted a corrected version of my post where I included a half-smiley.  This is
because the comment is half a joke, but also half serious.

Philisophically, the main search already needs to deal with how best to search
at huge depths vs. how best to search at tiny depths.  Some search code ignores
the difference; it is these cases that probably depend on the presence of a
separate q-search the most.  Search code which is designed to be adaptive
according to search depth should not have trouble encompassing q-search as well.

Practically, it may still be clearer to express what needs to be done near the
tips with a specific q-search routine.

Dave



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.