Author: Pat King
Date: 15:48:00 12/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2002 at 23:02:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 03, 2002 at 19:16:39, Pat King wrote: [snip] >All you know is this: > >score(best) = X > >Score of any other root move = X - rnd(constant). Why rnd()? Because >all we do is prove that each move is worst than the best, and the "stopping >point" for each of those searches is simply the _first_ value that is <= >X.Displaying those scores would be so terribly misleading that it would >be a gross idea to purport that they are anything but random offsets downward >from the best move score. I was about to argue with your rnd assertion, but luckily this evening I was thinking faster than I was typing, and I have to agree with you. (Gee that hardly hurt at all). > >> >>>Fail-low scores don't contain any information that can be compared between them, >> >>So your position would be that sorting them, and presenting (say) the "top >>five", would be invalid. > >"misleading" is the word that comes to mind, because what do you get if you >sort random numbers??? > A random sequence. What if (why don't I drop this?) one were to present them in the order they were searched? This would preserve killer move, history, etc., and the variations would presumably demonstrate "why not this move?" to the user.
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.