Author: Rafael Andrist
Date: 02:36:52 12/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2001 at 18:36:33, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 27, 2001 at 16:51:52, Rafael Andrist wrote: > >>On December 27, 2001 at 15:47:33, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>7 plies to stop the qsearch is not a holy number and >>>I do not know the correct number but it is clear to me that >>>not stopping the qsearch at some point is illogical and there is a position when >>>Fritz needed an hour to find mate in 1 because of qsearch >>>explosion. >> >>A possible solution which is theoretically correct but a bit tricky to >>implement: stop qsearch after x plys and set an "incomplete" flag. If you >>recognize during search that the "incomplete" node can still change the value of >>the tree, do the qsearch again. (I don't do it yet.) >> >>> Limiting qsearch is, in my opinion, same as making >>>>it almost useless. >>> >>> >>>In most of the qsearches there are not lines of more >>>than 7 plies so I do not see why limiting the qsearch to >>>7 plies make it almost useless. >> >>if limiting the qsearch doesn't change much, why limit it and maybe lose >>critical information? > > >If in 100 cases it changes nothing and in 1 case I waste 100 more nodes because >of not limiting the qsearch then the 1 case may be important. > >If the price that you pay to get the information is too high and the information >is something that you relatively cannot trust then it may be better not to get >the information. > >If I continue to give ideas for free then I have no chance to have a top program >in the future so maybe it is better if I stop it. haha. I cannot see any new ideas from you in this thread. Limiting the qsearch is also done by others. But it may be better for me to stop giving ideas for free about theoretically sound ways to limit qsearch as above since you ignore them. Rafael B. Andrist
This page took 0.02 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.