Author: KarinsDad
Date: 12:59:25 05/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 1999 at 15:03:01, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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? I do not understand these terms (if you could please explain them; I haven't been doing this type of stuff for long). There are two types of singular extension that I perform. The first is that of extending a move when it is the only move available (real simple). The other is that of extending a move when it is significantly better than all of the other choices. The determination of the significance varies in the search. Is this what you mean by margin? In any case, I probably need some work here. KarinsDad :) > >>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.