Author: Martin Giepmans
Date: 10:53:29 12/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2002 at 13:23:29, Ed Schröder wrote: >On December 30, 2002 at 11:27:46, Martin Giepmans wrote: > >>>For free-style pseudo code it is defendable, maybe in more c-code style would >>>make it more clear? >>> >>> { if (ALPHA > SCORE + THREAT && >>> ALPHA < SCORE + THREAT + MARGIN) -> reduce depth with one ply. } >> >>Yes, this makes it more clear. > >Okay, then I will make it that way. > > >>However, I wonder if the second part of the condition (the margin part) >>is useful. Maybe it is if the current window is smaller than margin, but >>otherwise? > >The idea is based on experience, not on logic, you know how it goes. It just >works for me. > Yes, I know :) > >>Of course, the extra condition makes the tric safer, but I think it could >>also cause more search instability. > >In my concept it hardly gave any trouble, but then the whole REBEL concept is >totally different. You will notice when I arrive on the issue null-move and how >I use it :) > > >>BTW, this probably doesn't work in an engine that uses PVS. >>Am I right? > >Please give the definition of PVS, I sometimes have the feeling there are more >than one definitions. > >Ed > The version of PVS that I had in mind searches all moves except the first with a minimal window (alpha, alpha+1). Martin > >>Cheers, >>Martin >> >>> >>>ALPHA=100 >>>SCORE=90 >>>THREAT=0 >>>MARGIN=20 >>> >>>-> reduction >>> >>>ALPHA=100 >>>SCORE=60 >>>THREAT=0 >>>MARGIN=20 >>> >>>-> no reduction >>> >>>Ed >>> >>> >>>>Martin
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.