Author: Severi Salminen
Date: 08:22:38 11/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2000 at 10:26:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 29, 2000 at 08:23:56, Severi Salminen wrote: > >>Hi! >> >>Robert Hyatt said that when he tested the performance differences between SEE >>and MVV/LVA he saw a 10% advantage for SEE. Is this 10% really worth it when we >>consider the fact that SEE might miss some tactical shots, like pins and other >>check involving sequenses? This might be also true if we use standing pat >>cutoffs in qsearch, but generally. Has anyone pitted a version of his/her >>program using SEE against MVV/LVA in a long match (more than 100 games at >>least)? What were the results? >> >>Severi > > > >You didn't read far enough. _IF_ you also use SEE to weed out losing captures >from your q-search, you can get a factor of _two_ speed improvement. That is, >you will search the tree _over_ twice as fast counting that original 10% >savings. Yes I checked your message again and noticed that as I stated in my "addenum" message... So, is there any need to worry about pins, for example? Severi
This page took 0.01 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.