Author: Will Singleton
Date: 15:01:08 10/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 1998 at 15:46:09, Don Dailey wrote: > >I think this is a matter of compromise. Bob's method emphasizes speed. >There is no question that if you do not do checks in quies you will >lose a ply here and there in certain tactics. But this must be balanced >with what you gain. Once you have committed to NOT doing checks in >quies, you can seek many other kinds of speedups. I don't know if Bob is >making the right compromises or not, but the point is that all of this >is trading "this and that" for the "other thing." If he were forced >to look at checks in quies, then he would probably be delayed in using >his SEE evaluator and also miss out on those speedups. In a program >like Bob's I would guess this would be a reaonsably big slowdown, and >therefore he may choose to give up the checks to gain the greater >search depth in general. Of course we will want to hear from Bob on >this but the main point I stress is that computer chess programming >is full of making these kind of compromise decisions. > >- Don Yes, I figured that. I was interested in the result of the wac002 position, since it looks to be one of those in which extending checks are important. And it does appear to be, since it takes him 12 ply to solve it tactically. Will
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.