Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:21:07 05/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 2001 at 15:54:51, Dan Andersson wrote: >I believe we are arguing somewhat the same thing here. If you have a dynamic >measure (not based on forward search, but search history) with a predictive >power of 90% (whatever) accuracy, would you not use it to decide when to enable >a costly extension (that might fail). > >Regards Dan Andersson No... because the idea of singular extensions is to extend those moves where there is only one good choice and everything else is significantly worse. I don't see how some history-based "trigger" would work very well here. IE you have to test a move for singularity in order to know whether or not it is singular. I'm not quite sure what I might try to use to determine that the test is irrelevant, other than the few obvious ideas already known... ie no point in doing a SE test if you are in check and you only have one legal move to get out. No point in doing a SE if you are recapturing a piece to restore the material balance. No point in doing a SE if the singular move is a piece attacked by the opponent at the previous ply (otherwise the opponent could blow the search up any time it is advantagous)... IE I can think of history ideas on when to not do it... but that leaves a _lot_ of open ground where they will be tried... trying to restrict it more strongly by trying to predict which moves _will_ be singular seems hard... IE I read the two choices as (a) do like DB and test most all moves for singularity; (b) do something different and test a very few moves for singularity. (b) seems harder and more dangerous...
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.