Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:43:24 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 16:31:12, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 14, 2000 at 15:55:55, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>Here are a set of tough positions to search deeply. Just finding a mate is not >>good enough, uless you can *prove* it is the shortest mate. > >Finding a mate is good enough even if you cannot prove that it is the shortest >mate. It's good enough to win. It's not good enough to find the most beautiful solution. In this case, it is a matter of goals. You can simply ignore any where you find checkmates if you don't like that part of the challenge. >Doing mistakes of not finding the shortest mate is going to change nothing in >rating points so I do not see the importance of it for normal chess programs >that are not mate solvers. Only a few of these will be a sure mate in 16 plies. Ignore those, if you so choose. >I do not see the point of searching to 16 plies. Stop at two plies then. Deeper is better. >It is easy to search faster if you do more pruning. But more error prone. If you search 20 plies by pruning but lose in 5 moves because of something you pruned out, it's not such a great idea. But if you can search 20 plies by extensive pruning and always get the same answers as a brute force search, then you have found something spectacular. Alpha-Beta (in particular) gets the same answer as exhaustive search, and only requres sqrt(n) tests provided you order the moves correctly.
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.