Author: Joshua Haglund
Date: 13:29:15 02/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 29, 2004 at 12:48:06, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 29, 2004 at 12:20:03, Joshua Haglund wrote: > >>On February 29, 2004 at 03:20:30, Matthias Gemuh wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>>My engine has a very unstable and unreliable search. >>>Sometimes I think I implemented what you are proposing. >>>My opinion is that the blindness introduced by such tricks would really hurt. >>> >>>/Matthias. >> >>yes! it wouldn't do the best search if it didn't reach great depth where f = 3; >>If your engine searches deep try ply > 12. If it doesn't try ply 8, etc... :) >> >> >>I have reason to believe a person will gain atleast 1 ply in the same amount of >>searched time. >> >>example >>time = 30; >>ply 7 = 4 seconds. >>ply 8 = 13 >>no more plies reached. >> >>// with idea. >>time = 30; >>ply 7 = 1 second >>ply 8 = 5 >>ply 9 = 20 seconds >> >>Maybe this would be good for long time controls? Skip shallow and go to deeper >>lines. >> >>Thanks for your reply, >> >>Joshua Haglund > >I can only say that I do not understand your idea. > >If you suggest to do selective search in the first plies then it seems to me a >bad idea because you may miss important moves. > >It is more logical to be selective in the last plies and programs do it for >example by qsearch but even then I do not see why do you use fixed number of >moves and the number of moves that you search should be dependent on the >position. > >prunning illogical moves is something important to do and programmers know it >so it is not new information. > >Uri I thought about doing a selective search also... pretty much the same thing. If you skip time wasted looking at first several plies, it'll get to a greater depth in less time to look for good moves. Thanks for your reply, Joshua Haglund
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.