Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 17:26:54 02/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 1998 at 15:12:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 06, 1998 at 14:02:11, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>A number of years ago, commercial programs like Lang's, and others >>seemed to get about 100 points stronger due to being selective >>searchers over their brute-force full-width, with capture quiescence >>counterparts. >> >>Is this true? If so, what are the nature of the changes involved? >> >>Thanks, >>Stuart > > >Do you honestly expect to get an answer to that? > >:) A referral to Lang's lack of divulging? I'd venture an easy guess that there's more expertise on this list than a fistful of Lang's. What I am looking for is what is all the stuff about a 3-4 ply full width 5-7 ply selective kind of thing that the commercial world, especially Lang, likes to do. I thought this kind of thing was discredited years ago since it could introduce error into the variation by omitting moves well before the quiescence. But I hear that it gives about 100 rating points which is nothing to sneeze at. --Stuart
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.