Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:39:37 12/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 2002 at 18:48:00, Pat King wrote: >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. I think the problem would be nit-pickers. You ask "why not this move" and it shows you "that loses a pawn by ...". But further investigation shows that it _really_ gets you mated. :)
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.