Author: Don Dailey
Date: 11:53:44 01/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
>I don't know of anyone who will make a statement of the form: "I/We do >singular extension, it helped us a lot, we proved to ourselves that it >is a good thing, and for you guys who are curious, here is a position >that we think it helps a lot in, and here is some other cool info >involving lots of other interesting numbers, for instance, look how many >more we get in the ECM suite with this!" >If someone wants to make all or part of the above statement, I would be >delighted to hear it. I cannot make this statement either. I implemented it a while back and it seemed to hurt the program slightly. But I'm not going to state the contrary either. There are too many factors and implementation details that could make a difference. But I'm not really too optimistic about these extensions because I don't think singularity is the key point although I do believe it is definitely relevant. The key point in my mind is to find a class of extensions that will make you understand things better at the end node. I tend to think in terms of "getting out there deeper" but I think that is wrong, the real issue is getting a more accurate score. I admit the "easiest" way to do this is to 'get out there deeper' but extensions always have the side effect of decreasing your minimum depth somewhere else, so we need to zero in on which moves these are. Singular moves are probably nothing more than "likely candidates", but still with low probability of helping. I'm guessing some variation of singularity that is more "picky" might be a better choice. I may re-implement sigular extensions and do some more experimentation. - Don
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.