Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:51:18 10/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2003 at 18:01:26, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 07, 2003 at 16:08:02, Pat King wrote: > >>On October 07, 2003 at 13:27:30, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>On October 07, 2003 at 13:08:28, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>> >>>>I'm working on incremental attack >>>>tables right now so that I don't have to mess with it. >>> >>>Be sure that you can really benefit from the overhead involved, because when you >>>go incremental, you have that overhead no matter what. If you do things on the >>>fly, you save work in cases where you don't need it. I know several people >>>prefer to do things on the fly, but I don't know of anyone that has tried both >>>ways and uses the incremental approach, but I certainly don't know what everyone >>>does. >>> >> >>The only thing I do on the fly is the raw material score. I once figured that >>this made sense to something like 8 ply (I've got a slow engine on a slow >>machine). Almost anything more complex doesn't justify an incremental approach >>IMHO (and I only say "almost" because I hate stating absolutes). >> >>Pat > >I believe that the number of plies that you search is irrelevant if you may want >the information in every node. > >In the case that we discuss(attack tables) we may need the information at every >node(except part of the leaves) for better order of moves or better pruning >decisions. > >Uri The deeper you go, the less sense incremental updating makes, in terms of scoring stuff. IE in endgames where you go 30 plies, is it faster to do 30 incremental updates, or just one total calculation at the endpoint? For move generation, the answer is different since you do move generations at the next ply and use the incremental stuff more frequently...
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.