Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 08:24:11 05/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2000 at 10:54:11, blass uri wrote: >I know it. >I explained in the same post that a move with better evaluation is not always >better but in most of the cases it is better. There's no basis for such an assumption, since you don't have the extra ply to make it plausible. >I assumed that when you say a better move you mean a move with better >evaluation(otherwise I do not understand the point of without an extra ply or >full iteration because you never can be cetain that the new move is better). No, you can't be never be absolutely sure and yes, the main thing is evaluation of course, but you still need an extra ply to establish that a candidate for a new move shouldn't be rejected at once. Otherwise you'll just make a superficial evaluation IMO. If the move was chosen at the same ply as the old one then you wouldn't need extra time. If move A is better than move B at 20 ply then move A is seleceted assuming that there isn't enough time to reach 21 ply. If there's extra time due to pondering then the program might find that move B is better at 21 ply. But is there enough time saved to reach 21 ply? In blitz games that won't necessarily be the case. And then you don't take incorrect pondering into the equation. That's how I see it. Take it or leave it, I have nothing further to add in this part of the thread. Best wishes... Mogens
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.