Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:51:27 08/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2003 at 13:38:16, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 31, 2003 at 12:55:00, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On August 31, 2003 at 10:17:30, scott farrell wrote: >> >>>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.... >> >>Maybe it is the nature of chess. >> >>Ed >I will never agree. > >If reducing check extensions does not improve your program it only proves that >you did not reduce it in the right cases. That could be very well the case, I will admit you were right the moment you post the rules to do so :) Ed
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.