Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 01:05:34 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2000 at 23:30:06, Michael Neish wrote: > >Hi, > >Well I'd like to ask people what they think of this idea. > >If when searching a position the number of beta cutoffs caused by captures is >much higher than that of non-captures, this might give an indication of the >volatility of the position. Conversely, a higher proportion than average of >non-capture beta cutoffs (where the "average" proportion is to be determined by >tests, etc) might indicate a fairly quiet position. > >I'm not sure the above is correct, but it seems to be so when I test my program >in a few varied positions -- far from an exhaustive analysis, I know. > >My suggestion is that you keep a running total of capture and non-capture beta >cutoffs, and if after searching a few ply you determine that the position is >highly volatile, you switch to a more tactical evaluation function (i.e., >material gain, attack on the King, creation of an advanced passed Pawn) and >ignore other positional factors. The idea is that you look for some near-term >gain/loss and drop out some factors which might slow down the evaluation. You >might even be able to gain a ply ... ? > >Conversely, if the positions is quiet, you use a slower but positionally more >accurate evaluation. You might lose a ply in search depth, but you might gain >something in accuracy. > >I'm not saying any the above is correct. It might be totally wrong or it might >be correct with some refinements. Does anyone have any comments? > >Cheers, > >Mike. Possibly variations of best score from ply to ply along with branching factor higher then average for previous few moves can give a hint then position is tactical, too. -Andrew- I once tried to assign more time for search
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.