Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 19:48:31 03/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 08, 2000 at 21:50:55, leonid wrote: >or can't say in the way that it could sound familiar. It is very nice that you >indicated me this point. Even if I listen what people speak in this place I do >my writing completely alone. Some entirely wrong or new decisions are possible. I admire you for writing your program on your own. But don't you think there's a point when you should at least try some of this stuff that's known to be good? >Mate solving logic (default level) even make double search. First 6 plies deep >brute force, and second mixed brute force and through speedy logic 14 plies >deep. All the time that mate solving logic think on the 400Mhz it represent less >that 0.055 sec. Since the speediest "positional logic" can see 6 plies by brute >force only in 1 or 2 seconds, 0.055 spent by two search in "mate solving logic" >is not that much. Maybe not. But for more than 90% (or whatever) of the time, it's still absolutely and totally worthless. Besides, my normal search is perfectly capable of finding mates anyway. -Tom
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.