Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 14:21:48 07/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 30, 1999 at 16:08:44, blass uri wrote: > >On July 30, 1999 at 14:05:01, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >> A few weeks ago somebody asked which selectivity levels were better for CM6000 >>to analyze at very long time controls, suited for correspondence play. >> The advice given was to use zero selectivity. I do not remember why I did not >>answer at that time, but my advice is exactly the opposite: the longer the time >>control the higher the selectiviyy level should be set, and not only for CM6000 >>but for any program that allows you to change it. >> The reason is that, due to the exponential nature of the search tree, the extra >>time is almost worthless when using no selectivity or very low selectivity. >>Jos > >It depends on the program. > Yes. I was trying to state the general tendency that higher selectivity is better for longer time controls. >I know that previous version of Rebel were more selective and it cause a problem >because Rebel prune some good moves with the selectivity. > Any selectivity can (and will) prune some good moves. But the risk should be minized at longer time controls. >If you use high selectivity (do not analyze moves that you consider as illogical >moves) then you can miss simple tactics because you prune some good sacrifices >and do not analyze them and it may be a big problem at long time controls. > I think that kind of selectivity (not analyzing "illogical" moves) is not used since the late seventies. I meant selectivity that analyzes moves with poor scores less deeply than moves with good scores. >Uri 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.