Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

Subject: Re: SEE functions

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 11:17:38 11/25/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 25, 2002 at 04:51:06, David Rasmussen wrote:

>What SEE implementations are publicly available, besides Crafty's?
>How good is Crafty's SEE compared to "the best"? Can some of the authors of
>closed/commercial programs comment on this?
>
>/David


Crafty's is not bad.  This is a classic trade-off issue.  It could easily be
made more
accurate.  IE not using absolute-pinned pieces and so forth.  But the question
becomes,
does the cost of the extra accuracy result in tree sizes that are small enough
that the
savings offsets the added computational cost...

It's easy to make it more accurate.  But the question is, "is it worth it?"

• Re: SEE functions Andreas Guettinger 12:16:35 11/25/02
  • Re: SEE functions David Rasmussen 13:31:01 11/25/02
    • Re: SEE functions Robert Hyatt 18:28:32 11/25/02
      • Re: SEE functions Russell Reagan 21:36:39 11/25/02
        • Re: SEE functions Bo Persson 09:40:03 11/26/02
          • Re: SEE functions Robert Hyatt 10:55:42 11/26/02
    • Re: SEE functions Pham Hong Nguyen 14:04:22 11/25/02
    • Re: SEE functions Andreas Guettinger 14:01:30 11/25/02
      • Re: SEE functions David Rasmussen 14:47:02 11/25/02
        • Re: SEE functions Andreas Guettinger 15:36:23 11/25/02

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.