Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 07:13:44 11/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2002 at 09:48:13, Uri Blass wrote:
>On November 08, 2002 at 08:50:46, Gerd Isenberg wrote:
>
>>On November 08, 2002 at 07:01:15, Grzegorz Sidorowicz wrote:
>>
>>>What do you think about formula?
>>>
>>>if (!(alpha>(CHECKMATE-QVALUE)))
>>>{
>>> do_not_extent=true;
>>>}
>>>
>>>Currently I'm testing this formula for all extensions
>>>and for example I have got 5 solutions more in WAC test...
>>>but now my program can't solve some other positions
>>>(for example CMB-10 from LCTII test)
>>>
>>>Grzegorz
>>
>>Hi Grzegorz,
>>
>>I suppose you want to disable extensions, if alpha is already a winning score.
>>Is the not operator correct, or what is your intention?
>>
>>Gerd
>
>I do not understand this idea.
>
>If alpha is already a winning score then it means that beta is also winning
>score so the game is over.
Yes, so doing further extensions now may be a waste of time.
>
>The only case when it may be relevant is if you search not in a normal way(for
>example search for exact score of the second best move)
>
>It is one of the ideas that I consider to try in the future(but of course I need
>to do it to reduced depth in order not to waste too much time about it).
>
>Wasting a small amount time can be useful to get knowledge(for example you can
>see if there is a forced move and play it faster if you have an exact score of
>the second best move)
Similar to singular extensions. No experience with this topic.
Gerd
>
>Uri
This page took 0.03 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.