Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: one vote for STAND QUIET from Mridul.

Author: Robin Smith

Date: 19:59:08 08/31/03

Go up one level in this thread


On August 31, 2003 at 13:51:27, Ed Schröder wrote:

>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

The rules are simple. Just use the 32 piece tablebases. :-)

Robin



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.