Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 09:17:22 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 But if done correctly it will result in a tremendous strength increase. Imagine that by magic an engine probes the tablebases at and only at relevant positions. Of course that is imposible but being close to that ideal is still an improvement. I think wheter to probe or not depends not only on the position in question, also on its place in the search tree. If it is at the end of the PV, by all means probe it. Also if the remaning depth is big. José.
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.