Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:12:16 08/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2003 at 06:54:19, Ed Schröder wrote: >On August 30, 2003 at 04:17:28, scott farrell wrote: > >>>1) Simple case : >>>[d] r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/4p3/3PP3/P4N2/1PP2PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4 >>> >>>Trivial to see that Bb4+ is to be not extended. > >>When i first saw your idea I was very excited. I tried that exact case, a check >>the does not capture, and can be captured by a pawn (I didnt look if the pawn is >>pinned against the king or other piece), and chompster's performance on WAC >>dropped significantly. > >>I think chompster has so much futility pruning, and search reductions code, that >>if we extended something stupid, it gets pruned fairly quickly or reduced (the >>opposite of extension). > > >There is a more plausible explanation, that is, there are probably no good rules >not to extend checks, just extend them. > >My best, > >Ed I do not find something illogical in the original explanation I think that there are good rules not to extend checks but the rule that was used was not good enough and you may need more conditions not to extend in order not to do the mistake of not extending important moves. I also think that the question if a rule is good is dependent on the other rules and it is more logical not to extend for a program that does not use a lot of pruning. 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.