Author: Reinhold Gellner
Date: 06:45:52 10/20/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 1997 at 08:52:02, Chris Whittington wrote: > >On October 20, 1997 at 02:29:25, Reinhold Gellner wrote: >>To eliminate that problem, try increasing the search depth by 2 ply >>every iteration. > >This is a surprisingly well used solution. >But increasing by 2 each iteration loses much of the advantage of >iterating (guided search and 'small' incrementally deeper researches). >You need to jump by two every two iterations, and find a method for what >to do in the 'gap' iteration. > >Its also an advantage for an exchange-evaluator to stop on odd plies, >rather than even. Its decisions that an as yet untaken piece is actually >lost will be better taken if the piece is a computer piece (odd ply) >than a human piece (even ply). Asymetric safety factor skandal for >Komputers !. > >Best then is to jump by 2 ply every two iterations and use a pruning >function over the final plies that is strong pruning the first iteration >and weaker pruning the second - then jump two plies again and so on. > 2-ply-jumping is not neccessarily more stable than 1-ply-steps, because the jumping "distance" is simply one ply more. If you are doing sophisticated prunings, e.g. part-ply prunings, together with part-ply-extensions, then perhaps half-ply-iterations might be worth considering. At the moment I can live with smooth oscillations jumping allways one ply. Reinhold
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.