Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 15:57:16 10/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2000 at 18:16:07, Brian Richardson wrote: >Most better programs seem to use SEE. I have not implemented this yet in >Tinker, but have some concerns. I realize the point of SEE is "static" (and >meant to be much faster than recursive make/unmake move searching), but is it >not a problem that the SEE is only concerned with attacks to one particuar >square at a time? I would think that a series of exchanges would open up other >significant move options that the SEE does not see (pardon the pun). I don't >recall reading anything about SEE in ICCA or elsewhere and was wondering what >others thought about this. Perhaps the move ordering (and pruning) benefits >simply outweigh the incomplete analysis, sort of like the crude history score >technique. Mistakes near the tips aren't as important as mistakes higher in the tree. Everything that hapens near the tips is very heuristic. bruce
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.