Author: scott farrell
Date: 07:17:30 08/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2003 at 08:12:16, Uri Blass wrote: >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. > I agree with Ed. Every time I reduced check extensions it hurts strength. I think its the forcing nature of the move, that's why sacs actually work, if you dont find what it leads to, the other side will.... >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.