Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:49:34 01/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 1998 at 02:28:17, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On January 11, 1998 at 02:27:30, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On January 11, 1998 at 01:07:46, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >> >>>Someone on this newsgroup wrote about a useful extension >>>that went something like "If the null move search returns >>>a mate score, e.g. n moves to mate, then extend." >>> >>>I didn't see any improvement (with limited testing) after >>>implementing this. Is it basically in time-to-solve or >>>seeing more solutions? >> >>Try using it in positions were it matters, for instance Wac 141. > >FYI I don't claim that it's great, it just worked for me on some >positions, and didn't wreck anything else. > >Feel free to post your own "beef" if you would like. > >bruce the big mistake here is assuming this will turn a tactical idiot into a tactical genius. Such algorithms don't happen very often. Generally you find small incremental improvements for each new idea. This is but one such example. It doesn't cost a lot, but in positions where you can be mated if you don't move, this recognizes that as a threat and searches deeper. For me it is the difference between getting wac141 right in 1 minute or less or missing it. It also speeds up other positions as well. But it is a modest improvement, just like everything else Bruce and I have tried. Not many +400 rating point ideas floating around. :)
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.