Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 10:49:59 03/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2000 at 13:37:02, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On March 23, 2000 at 13:18:52, Andrew Dados wrote: > >>On March 23, 2000 at 13:08:51, John Coffey wrote: >> >>>Does interative deepening insure that a program will pick the fastest >>>improvement? I.e. if a program can improve its position by .1 pawn in 3 moves, >>>how do I know that it won't choose a .1 improvement in 5 moves instead? >>> >>>John Coffey >> >> Any brute-force search (including alpha-beta) guarantees it by definition :) > >I don't think so. The brute force searches that people do in computer chess rely >on evaluation functions that do not distinguish between depths. > >-Tom The question as I understood was: When there is an improvement within e.g. 3 plies, can we be sure that our search won't miss it (searching 3 plies deep). And _that_ we can be sure. two remarks: 1) null move pruning <> brute-force search. 2) 'improvement' is defined by program solely: evaluation function, qsearch and all horizon effects, not by us. -Andrew-
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.