Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 11:59:33 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 12:03:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 13, 2003 at 11:31:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 13, 2003 at 09:29:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >> >>> >>>there are very big differences. >>> >>> >> >>There isn't a big difference if you are only talking about the q-search. >> >>If you do a check, you have to get out and that extends. If you extend >>on the check you don't extend when you get out and that extends. >> >>It is different in the normal part of the search, because if you extend on >>a check you increase depth by one now. You might reach the q-search if you >>wait to extend when you escape check. but in the q-search I don't see how it >>is a "big difference". > >You don't have to apologize for not knowing basic tree math, you're excused. >Had seen already in crafty code that it was done wrong there. > >Yet i had already posted years ago at CCC that if you extend when being checked, >that this is better than when giving the check. > >What delivers more cutoffs for the hashtable: > >A) >Re5+ (5 ply remaining) >Kf7 (5 ply remaining) >Rxa5 (4 ply remaining) > >B) >Re5+ (5 ply remaining) >Kf7 (4 ply remaining) >Rxa5 (4 ply remaining) > >If you can answer that question then you'll know the answer to the basic tree >searching question. Assuming you handle the hash table correctly, both will produce the very same result (except leaf nodes, of course). > >Best regards, >Vincent
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.