Author: Aaron Tay
Date: 06:24:12 09/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2000 at 17:06:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... I was trying to say that one approach for all positions wouldn't be a good idea. I'm sure everyone agrees with this..Or am i wrong?
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.