Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 13:11:25 04/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
>> >>1) material score + highest positional advantage seen for this side >>2) material score - highest positional advantage seen for the other side > >So i would need after a few ply a window > > materialscore + 20000 > > materialscore - 20000 > >pawn = 1000. Come on, Vincent. You can't be serious. Do you want to make us believe that you give purely positional scores in size of 20 pawns ? I should guess that Dieter's idea will work okay. Some months ago, I have however decided to skip these hard forward-cuts at all. I now instead start the quiescence search one ply earlier in case my criterions for pruning have been hit. I hope that this is a bit saver than immediate return from the search. I have made the experience that you can very easily spoil a progam's play by too optimistic forward cuts. It's really a very dangerous field for experiments. But I think it's worthwhile experimenting. There is probably a potential to win a lot. Uli > >I knew someone would again reinvent this old idea. >Only works for simplistic evals. > > >>where, with positional evaluation, I mean the overall positional score, that >>includes both sides. >> >>1) is compared with alpha, if <= alpha, it is returned as estimation >>2) is compared with beta, if >= beta, it is returned as estimation >> >>I also made some tests, to see how often this fails. IIRC this happened very >>rarely. >> >>Regards, >>Dieter
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.