Author: Severi Salminen
Date: 03:25:29 11/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2000 at 12:45:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Well, I'm not performing any illegal captures (which leaves king in check) - so if a piece or a pawn is pinned to (?) king it can't maybe capture and SEE doesn't see that. I ment no other pins. But maybe king pinning situations are _very_ rare that one doesn't have to consider them. Severi
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.