Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 12:03:01 05/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 1999 at 11:26:29, KarinsDad wrote: >I was wondering how deeply most programs extended the search at a given ply for >check. Maybe a simple fixed multiple of the depth you are searching to is sufficient in practice. 2 or 3 or something. You could experiment to optimize it. There's a lot of useless checks sometimes, but there's often a correct sequence too. >I implemented singular extensions, check extensions, and capture extensions into >my code last night, but ran into the problem of check extensions potentially >expanding the extensions into near infinity. I believe it. :) Did you implement PV or FH singular extensions (or both)? Have you experimented with your margin at all yet? >How many checks do most programs consider is enough when extending? > >Thanks, > >KarinsDad :) > >PS. Will, we realized that our nps is way off. We were compiling the code in >debug mode as opposed to optimized mode. So, our 100 knps went up to 209 knps. >Duh! Doh! :) Dave
This page took 0.01 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.