Author: Marc Bourzutschky
Date: 08:23:25 04/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2004 at 20:17:44, Johan de Koning wrote: >On April 02, 2004 at 04:58:25, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On April 02, 2004 at 02:13:53, Johan de Koning wrote: >> >>>But as Theron pointed out some years ago, one should avoid *any* >>>probe inside a search. >> >>Do you recall the argument? > >Blindly probing after captures results in lots of redundant probes. >Most positions are way off balance (outside [alpha,beta]) and are >interesting only if a 1 or 3 ply tactic exists. > >About 2 years ago Chritophe posted he was working/planning on a >set of rules to decide for each material config whether to probe >or not (depending on local depth I guess). Then he went on doing >Palm stuff and other, more important, improvements. > >The idea is sound I think, because 1 probe that misses the EGDB >cache is already awfully expensive. But on the other hand, with >6 men, building a set of rules (more imprtantly exceptions) will >be quite a daunting task. > >... Johan A set of general rules will be difficult, but it is a fact that when analyzing endgame studies programs that probe tablebases beyond the root perform significantly better, because almost by definition the probed positions will often be non-trivial. But perhaps those of us who use comps for such analysis are in the minority compared to people who run engine-engine "tournaments" or hardware contests on the servers... -Marc
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.