Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 05:15:43 10/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
Hi On October 06, 2001 at 00:14:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >OK... your first conclusion is right: "A q-search without SEE is more >accurate." But you have to add "it is also 2x-3x _slower_ because you will >look at so many ridiculous captures, you will search a ply less deep. > >That is the reason we are doing this. To cut the size of the tree by tossing >those lemon captures. You know, in a way this sounds like cutting the tree somewhere, which leads to less nodes and therefore more plies in the end. Considering that 99% of all variations a chess program looks at are BS anyway and if we do this cutting near the tips (and therefore reduce the risk of cutting important nodes) that should also work. :) Sheesh, we make programs with a more or less dumb eval, we do qsearch which is full or errors, we use hashtables which also can produce funny results, we build opening books out of GM games which our program follow blindly (ok, also more or less :) but in the end we have a program which beats us poor humans (ok, most of them) badly. :) Sargon
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.