Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:06:20 09/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2000 at 13:37:31, Aaron Tay wrote: >On September 22, 2000 at 12:04:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 22, 2000 at 09:48:49, Kim Roper Jensen wrote: >> >>>Hi All >>> >>>I saw the post about variable selectivity, and wondered. >>> >>>How about having a "turbulence" ( this comes from an article in the book >>>Computer chess Compendium ) variable, > >>>Is this something thats tried ?? > >>>With regards Kim > > >>That is actually backward from the way selectivity has to work to be effective. >>If you have a large number of moves to choose from, if you don't toss many of >>them, then your search will be way shallower than when you do. >> >>That is the catch-22 of selectivity in its many forms. The more you toss out, >>the deeper you go, and the more you see, and the more you also miss. >> >>The less you toss out, the shallower you go, the less you see, and the less >>you also miss. >> >>Which is better? :) > >Well it depends is a safe answer right? No... it depends on _which_ approach produces the most right answers. If your selectivity is good, it works. If it is not so good, it costs you points. It isn't a matter of safe or unsafe so much...
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.