Author: Tony Werten
Date: 18:09:36 11/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2002 at 20:52:01, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On November 23, 2002 at 20:00:15, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On November 23, 2002 at 11:11:16, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On November 23, 2002 at 09:22:37, jefkaan wrote: >>> >>>>oops, wasn't finished yet.. >>>> >>>>>are done by using the results of the positional eval >>>>>to prune the q-search, >>>>and there using only material eval >>>> (haven't tried it out yet, and wouldn't >>>>know how to do it, but it's only an idea, >>>>you know.. to explore options of >>>>more effective branch factor reducements >>>>and efficient programming (besides >>>>lousy solutions as inline assembler >>>>and bitboards.. >>>>:) >>> >>> >>> >>>Yes Chess Tiger does much more pruning than known (published) techniques. >>> >>>I think other top programs do it also. >>> >>>I still fail to see why the efficiency of an algorithm depends on what your >>>QSearch does. >>> >>>If your pruning algorithm is good, it will increase the strength of the program >>>regardless on how good your QSearch is. >>> >>>If your QSearch is smart, then it will increase the strength even more. >>> >>>I don't like the idea that some algorithms that have almost nothing to do with >>>each other would have such an influence on each other. It is indeed possible and >>>it probably happens all the time, but it's hard to work with such hypothesis in >>>mind. >>> >>>I think it's better to first assume that the kind of QSearch you do will not >>>interfere with the quality of the pruning algorithm used before the QSearch. >>> >>>If your QSearch sucks, it's not because you are doing a lot of pruning in the >>>"full width" part of the search. It's because it sucks. >> >>The paper does prove that the more your (q)search sucks, the better your pruning >>algoritm seems. But that's not really news. >> > >Does it prove that?! No, it's just my impression based on the data gathered so >far. Maybe a reduction of 2 (instead of 1) in case of fail-high report, will >work better in programs with heavy extensions and quiescence. A reduction of 20% seems to be working best in XiniX ( heavy qsearch). I'm interessed in your idea. It's commented out in my program now, but not deleted. I still have to play with it some more. Despite of the negative comments you had, I don't think it's a bad idea. I'm just not convinced yet it's a good one. Tony > > >>Tony >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.