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.