Author: Martin Giepmans
Date: 17:02:04 12/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2002 at 19:45:19, Tony Werten wrote: >On December 29, 2002 at 19:35:52, Martin Giepmans wrote: > >>On December 29, 2002 at 19:05:51, Tony Werten wrote: >> >>>http://members.home.nl/matador/chess840.htm >>> >>>Tony >> >>The formula for reductions 2b and 2c look strange: >>"alpha < score + threat + margin --> reduce depth ..." >> >>This would imply that a bigger threat gives more reductions ... >>Should be score - threat - margin? > >Or ALPHA should have been BETA. > >I'm not sure if this is a "position below alpha wich is not going to improve" or >a "position above beta wich is not going to deteriorate" > >I have to let it sink in. > >I feel good because I have been working on this stuff before, I feel bad because >I dropped it because I didn't use that last small refinement Ed explains. Well, >given 20 years I would have found it (maybe) I think nearly all programmers in the era "before nullmove" have experimented with these and similar ideas. Had you lived in that era you probably wouldn't have dropped it so easily .. Do you feel better now? :) Martin > >BTW Ed, I send you a personal mail. ( from the webpage) > >Tony > >> >>Martin
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.