Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 07:54:03 08/04/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1998 at 23:35:18, Ed Schröder wrote:
(snip)
>I found the selective search in Rebel9 taking too much risk at certain
>points. Rebel10 is better in this respect. The negative result of such
>a wider search is of course that (speaking in terms of ply-depth) it
>takes a chess program more time to finish the ply (iteration).
>
>Here are (just) 3 examples of the so called "holes" (as chess programmers
>call it) in the selective search part of a chess program, in this case Rebel.
>
>3rkb1r/p2nqppp/5n2/1B2p1B1/4P3/1Q6/PPP2PPP/2KR3R w kq - bm Rxd7
>r1r2b2/pb4pk/1pB2p1p/3P1P2/8/PP2q1P1/2Q1P2P/RN2R2K b - - bm Rxc6
>r2r2k1/Bpq2pbp/4p3/n3Pp2/5P1N/2P1Q3/P1P3PP/R4RK1 b - - bm Rxa7
>If you test these positions with Rebel you will notice it takes Rebel a long
>time to solve these (simple) positions. This because of the too small (is
>risky) selective search. I even think (not tested) that Rebel Decade does
>a better job in these 3 particular positions :)) Fixed in Rebel10, it only
>takes a few seconds now.
>
>If this is worth the pretty huge investment of 30%, only time can tell but
>I think it does.
>
>- Ed -
(snip)
Wow!
These holes are really frightening, Ed.
30% is a lot, but avoiding the tactical problems seems important.
Christophe
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.