Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 11:26:08 05/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2000 at 13:25:04, Steve Coladonato wrote: >On May 04, 2000 at 12:40:27, Dan Andersson wrote: > >>No you are mistaken. You are not looking at a shallow ply depth at all. It is >>only that by knowing the value of the best move you can discard really bad >>variations fast, i.e. you only need to prove that the next move cannot be better >>for you, not its exact value. That was the main point of the 'hole' analogy. > >Dan, > >But what is it you are looking at to determine the value of the move if it is >not an evaluation at various ply depths? It seems to be a static evaluation of >the board similar to an arbiters decision just looking at the board. > >Also, given moves A, B, C with B the actual best move, if I start with A and >spend some time with it, at the end of that time, A is the best move because so >far it is the only one I've looked at. Now I go to B, and using whatever it is >that is being used to eval these moves, I see right away that B is better. Do I >now spend some additional time looking at B or do I just move right on to move >C? > >Steve hi The alpha beta is suppose that every side will play the best, usually in a given position a player moves and suppose the move A1 (the first choice) gets 20 points for that player. Ok, later you see what happens moving A2 (his second choice) and you suddenly see that if the other player plays B1 then he eat your horse or got a very cool position for him or something and he get for example 300 points, so -300 points for the first player. Well you will not play A2 because you know it is worse than A1 , and obviously you don't know its exact value because B2 may be win a very pretty queen for the second player but that dont care. Thats on the whole tree, for both sides. am sorry 'cause my english.
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.