Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:45:34 11/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2000 at 11:22:38, Severi Salminen wrote: >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 Think about the q-search. Are you including moves that pin something? Or are you just following captures? It is _so_ inaccurate already, that ignoring pinned/overloaded pieces doesn't make it much worse.
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.