Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 17:05:17 11/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2002 at 19:57:40, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On November 22, 2002 at 17:43:13, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On November 22, 2002 at 17:29:35, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On November 22, 2002 at 07:26:02, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>I expect it to do better at longer times too of course, for the reason >>>>pointed out in this thread than it becomes more comparable to R=3. R=3 is >>>>superior in Deep Sjeng compared to verified R=3, so as verified gets >>>>closer to R=3, it will do better, but I don't expect it to do >>>>"better than R=3". >>>> >>>>I have different testing priorities right now because in any case it >>>>looks vastly inferior to what I am doing now (not R=3 and not R=2/3). >>> >>>What are you doing now? >> >>Ultra-Secret-Commercial-Hyper-Mega-Pruning-Technique XBHY-356 >> >>:) >> >>-- >>GCP > >So you're not going to write it up and publish it? No. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it - it's not really fair to Omir as he does publish his stuff. But I am contemplating publishing another method that will yield both smaller tree sizes and more solutions for a fixed depth. I call it 'disable lazy evaluation'. From what I've read here, the ICCA would accept it right away. -- GCP
This page took 0.09 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.