Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:40:11 08/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2003 at 17:27:05, Sune Fischer wrote: >On August 21, 2003 at 17:21:06, Uri Blass wrote: > >>>If you had a pruning rule that gained 50 elo in all games but made blunder moves >>>every time there was a quadrople pawn on the board, would you do the pruning? >> >>I believe that if I have that pruning rule then I can easily change it not to >>make the blunder without significant difference in strength. > >But for the sake of argument, suppose you couldn't. >Which is more important to you? increasing strength. > >>pruning rule basically say to search to reduced depth. >>I see no reason not to search at all if you are not sure. >> >>Junior decides not to search at all. > >No Junior thinks one side can't win and adjusts bounds, it has nothing to do >with reducing depth. Junior can also do verifying search with different bounds(-infinite,infinite) when it get position when one side has only a bishop and in the rare case of getting mate value it can change the assumption that bishop cannot mate for the rest of the search. > >>The gain from deciding that bishop cannot win could still be almost the same >>after modifying this rule to do verification search to depth d/4 when the >>remaining depth is d and only after this search to decide that a bishop cannot >>win. > >In which case the mate is going to need 40 plies, so you'll miss it anyway. mate in 3 is 5 plies(5*4=20) and it is possible to get 20 plies in the endgame. it can be even less than 5 plies if you do checks in the qsearch and in this case it can be translated to 16 plies. Uri
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.