Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 17:20:17 11/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2002 at 18:43:46, scott farrell wrote: >On November 23, 2002 at 11:19:39, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>On November 23, 2002 at 08:11:37, scott farrell wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>I know that measuring nodes for a fixed search depth sounds like good science, >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>IMHO, it is a big mistake when using tactical positions. >>Nodes to solution should be a better parameter. > >Which is largely what I was getting too, but also making a note that a solution >can be found WITHOUT having to complete the ply in question. Yes, I have used this procedure a few times. It takes a little more time sometimes but I think that it has less "noise". It is very important to select good positions. Those when it is clear that the program understand what's going on when it "sees" the "best move" without any doubt. The problem is how to handle the data later. Doing a simple average is very wrong IMHO. If anybody is interested, I can post what I think it is best, I am in a rush now and I need to explain it in detail to be understood. Later, Miguel Miguel > >> >>Miguel
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.