Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 13:50:38 09/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 2002 at 16:10:38, martin fierz wrote:
>bestvalue = -mate;
>for all moves do
> {
> value = -search(-beta,-alpha,etc);
> bestvalue = max(value, bestvalue);
alpha = max(value, alpha);
> if(value>beta)
> break;
> }
>return bestvalue;
>
>is there anything wrong with this?
Pehaps you left it out on purpose - but this code snipped is missing an update
of alpha. For example at the place, I suggested above.
I see the same problem as you. Even when using strict fail soft search (I also
consider other points mentioned in this thread, like lazy eval), I typically
(but not allways) get back a score of X+1 for search, that fails high in the
window X, X+1. I think, your suggestions "alpha-beta tries to do the least work"
explains this. With a deep depth, and a complicated search tree, the X+1 score
will be easiest to prove and most probably be proven first.
Regards,
Dieter
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.