Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 16:44:30 06/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2001 at 23:09:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 20, 2001 at 13:20:26, Jason Williamson wrote: > >>If these results are promising any chance you will implement them yourself? >> >>JW > > >Of course. I just haven't seen anything that I really like so far. I have >tried this several times myself already. Sometimes it looks promising, but >when I try it in real games, it seems worse. > >This most recent attempt to tweak old code I wrote a couple of years ago looks >good at times, but also looks bad at times. I'm still trying to find a case >where it appears to play better than the non-SE version... I talked with GCP during our match. Based on what he told me, I fiddled a little myself. It does do something, but it clearly costs depth too. Also I don't have the feeling "forced" on the basis of a D-3 search is very accurate. To test it I disabled all extensions, to see if any long PV's showed up. And it occasionally happened, so it does do something. What I did *not* see is extremely long PV's (which I hoped for of course). But it did solve a couple of wac's sooner than with no extensions, so I don't seem to have it all wrong. To me it seems a cheapo version, which has is pro's and it's cons, of course. IMO Crafty certainly played different, putting pressure immediately. Normal Crafty is only worrying about outside passsers :-) Best regards, Bas.
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.