Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:14:10 03/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 18, 2003 at 14:37:19, Albert Bertilsson wrote: >Hi! > >I just want to publish my findings with WAC and Sharper, as I've written >previously Sharper managed a bad 195 out of 300 in WAC. > >Running test with the 105 failed positions gave this: > >Adding check extensions 69 of 105 solved, great! But adding check extensions >really lowers the BF because a lot of extending is done on a single meaningless >check. In Sharpers built in test node count rise with almost 40% =(. > >So I add code to only extend on two checks or more, and I get this: >52 out of 105 problems solved. Node count in the test rise with about 2%. > >Clearly check extension are great to have. > >But they are not so great to have most of the game when they don't manage to >give any better result. So I'm thinking maybe turn on check extensions in the >end game, and have the two check rule during the rest of the game. However, this >won't help much as many of the positions in WAC are not end game positions (at >least not by Sharpers measure). > >It all comes down to, what's best low BF or high WAC result? What do you think >about extension rules based on game phase? > >I know that 53 or 36 failed positions is not anyway near the results you >consider good, but remember that Sharper is weak engine with lot of work still >to do. (And I'll do it, just give me some time) If the cost is 2% more nodes and the result is much greater tactical strength, then it seems that they are worth while. There is an interesting statement by Yassar Sierawan (Paraphrasing): Do not look for tactics until you have a space and development advantage. You won't find them. This makes me believe that we should sharpen our tactical factors _after_ we have developed a space advantage, a development advantage, or both.
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.