Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:10:39 01/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2001 at 09:38:19, Brian Richardson wrote:
>Thank you very much for looking into this. For some time I have suspected
>Tinker's agressive recapture extensions were a net negative. Naturally, the mix
>of techniques is different (no fractional extensions, q-search hashing, no SEE,
>etc), but basic principals ("chess physics"?) should still apply.
>
>Brian Richardson
Maybe or maybe not. Remember that they _do_ work for some. IE I have
worked on and off on singular extensions for 2-3 years. I can't get anything
to "help" crafty. Yet they worked very well in Cray Blitz. But in Cray
blitz, I didn't do recursive null-move with R=2 and 3, which is a difference.
I think the engine is often greater than the sum of its parts, and changing
_any_ part can win or lose independent of what it did to _other_ programs.
Hence my continual recommendation that "this worked (or didn't work) for
me, but you _should_ try it for yourself to see how it does in your program."
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.