Author: David B Weller
Date: 11:03:59 07/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
Thanks Fabien. Yes, the missing '-' was a mistake. As it turns out, {-alpha-1, -alpha} are what I am using after the 1st move, and if(val > alpha && val < beta) val = -pvs(-beta, -alpha) are the condition and bounds of the re-search. I was actually hoping I had it all fouled up, so I could 'IMPROVE' it significantly! :) The 'heads-up' about storing mate scores with 'inflated' drafts was helpful. I think that was messing some things up. I have to think some more on this "mate-distance pruning". >The "mate-distance pruning" I use is common, but I don't know a >standard name for it. It is a completely different idea, that is >actually independent of the transposition table. If at a given node >you already have a "mate in 3" (= 5 plies) then only a "mate in 2" (= >3 plies) or shorter could improve the current value. Therefore there >is no need to look more than 3 plies ahead in any subtree. You might >need to adjust depending on how you detect mates. Also most engines >count mate distances "to the root", so implementation requires care. thank you. David
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.