Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:43:29 01/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 18:58:43, David Rasmussen wrote: >On January 15, 2003 at 17:36:43, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On January 15, 2003 at 16:54:38, David Rasmussen wrote: >> >>>Why did you choose to go with ordinary alpha-beta search? >>> >>>/David >> >> >>It's not an "ordinary alpha-beta search." See: >> >>http://members.home.nl/matador/chess840.htm#SEARCH >> >>where you will find: >> >>"REBEL uses the standard *Aspiration* Alpha-Beta Search technique..." > >I know he uses aspiration search, but I deliberately decided not to write that >because null-window search schemes such as negascout/PVS can be and are used for >aspiration search too. They are too separate decisions. So given that he uses >aspiration search, why did he choose normal alpha-beta over negascout/PVS? > >/David One reason might be extension triggers. If you do pruning decisions based on alpha/beta, where you do one thing if the score is < alpha, something else if it is "in the ballpark of alpha/beta window" and yet something else if it is > beta, PVS wrecks that as the "in the ballpark" area doesn't exist. Whether that is the problem or not, I don't know of course...
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.