Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:51:58 08/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 14, 2003 at 18:37:16, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On August 14, 2003 at 18:32:01, Uri Blass wrote: > >>1)If your first move did not fail high than it is better to have bad order of >>the rest of the moves because if you have bad order of the rest of the moves >you have good chances that the first move is going to fail high against them. >> >>If you have good order of moves than the you get no points for the fact that >>your second move failed high. > >It's late in here, and I don't get this at all. > >I don't understand a thing of what you are saying, and what I do understand, >looks wrong. > >-- >GCP ok I will try to explain at least one point Let assume that you start from a position when alpha=0 beta=1 you start the search with bad move for white and good move for black omagine that black has a mate threat that there is only one way to defend against it and imagine that you failed to find the defence in the first move when you searched 1.e4 Qxh2# now you have one defence against Qh2# namely Rf2 but if you choose Rf2 as a second move you get no first fail high from it. Suppose that you try bad moves for white 1.e3 Qh2# 1.d4 Qh2# for every wrong move Qh2# cause a cutoff so your order of moves looks better relative to the case that you never calculates these lines because the second move(Rf2) produce a cutoff. Note that I did not try to calculate percentage of fail high because it seemed to me wrong because of the reason that I gave now. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.