Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:55:43 02/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 1998 at 20:26:54, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >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. Not a referral just to Lang... :( > >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.