Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:41:19 10/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2003 at 02:37:24, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On October 09, 2003 at 02:16:37, Dana Turnmire wrote: > >>Thanks for the explanation though I'm not sure who the original poster was of >>this. It just didn't make sense that an evaluation function that was supposedly >>inherently defective could propel Richard Langs programs to ten world titles. >>Regards. > >the method worked to come deeper in the tree because you did not have to >compute ALL moves in your own plies. If the method worked well then it is because other programs did not know to do something better. I do not think that not searching your own plies is a good strategy. It is better to do something about the plies of both sides. My pruning methods (null move is only one of them is about the plies of both sides). 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.