Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 04:50:01 10/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2002 at 06:46:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 15, 2002 at 03:27:34, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >reduce the extensions. i use singular extensions in diep. >see posting elsewhere here. you see also a 23 ply line from >diep there from which just 2 checks. and the search depth is >17 ply. What are you talking about? You said this, "*possibly* if it prints (6), the logs clearly show that 5(6) doesn't show a 5 ply mainline. but < 5", and I responded with data that proves you wrong. You didn't say anything about extensions. Without knowing exactly what they did, there is no way to find out exactly which moves were being extended or by how much, so it's impossible to "reduce the extensions". You could guess which moves receive extension, but it's impossible to know for sure. >So i won somehow 6 plies because of singular extensions, which >basically extends threats against pawns and captures (in this >case no checks as there were only 2 which < 6 ply ). Maybe SE only "extends threats against pawns and captures" in your program, but you can't say that's what it does in every program. >You so naive? Maybe if you could say exactly what you mean, stop changing your mind every 5 minutes, and stop spewing irrelevant random pages of stuff about your program while assuming it must apply to every program, I could respond in a way that sounds less 'naive' to you. It's not my fault you change the argument or completely stop responding when someone gives data to challenge/disprove what you're saying. By the way, I'm still waiting for output of Diep without repetition detection on the h3 position.
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.