Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:35:25 12/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2002 at 03:49:40, Ed Schröder 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 ..." > >The formula is okay, read the purpose of the reduction: > >"The idea is, reduce the depth in case the score plus the (material) threat plus >an extra margin still does not get it to ALPHA the future of this subtree isn't >very promising, thus reduce." > > > >>This would imply that a bigger threat gives more reductions ... >>Should be score - threat - margin? > >No. But maybe you we have a different understanding about ALPHA? Maybe you mixup >ALPHA with BETA? It wouldn't be the first time :) > >Ed I guess the mistake Martin makes is that he is too much busy reducting at the top of his search. whereas you reduce directly *after* making a move. After making a move is in general smarter unless you know what you do at top of the search. At top of the search alpha becomes beta and < becomes > :) >>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.