Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 13:31:01 11/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2002 at 15:16:35, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >On November 25, 2002 at 14:17:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >> >>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?" > We're not just talking tree sizes here, are we? See below. > >I would say no. The differences between MVV/LVA are already not that big, so >even if the SEE is not the most accuratest, if it is only used for move >ordering, that doesn't really. More important is that it is fast and only >executed when necessary. > For move ordering, Crafty's is probably fine. That is, I don't think that there is a lot to gain in move ordering and therefore tree size, by a more accurate SEE. But SEE is also, in Crafty at least, and in Chezzz (which uses a SEE-function similar to Crafty's), used to throw out apparently futile captures. If the SEE isn't good enough, this will lead to tactical problems, by throwing out what seems to be a futile capture, but isn't. I asked my original question with that aspect in mind. How safe is it to throw a capture out, using Crafty's SEE? /David
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.