Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:04:25 10/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2001 at 08:15:43, Daniel Clausen wrote: >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 You got it... :)
This page took 0.01 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.