Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 10:30:59 05/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 1999 at 11:32:15, KarinsDad wrote: >On May 04, 1999 at 23:40:34, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>On May 04, 1999 at 15:59:25, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>I extend one ply for giving check, always - there is no limit on this. I never >>extend more than one ply at a given node. > >I am doing the opposite. I extend whenever anything interesting is going on >(such as non-quiescence) almost as far as I can go. I then mark the >non-quiescent children nodes as being searched so that they do not get >re-searched (when I get to the next ply). You are supposed to continue to extend the search from the positions where it first decided to extend in all subsequent searches! Otherwise, you will encounter the depth-valley effect. Do you have access to Singular Extensions: Adding Selectivity to Brute-Force Search? (1991, title from memory). It might be in a journal at a local university library. I was going to quote some stuff from it (including definitions for PV- and FH-singular) but I'm not sure where it is at the moment. If I uncover it I'll let you know. >KarinsDad :) Dave
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.