Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:53:02 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 22:50:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 13, 2003 at 16:05:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 13, 2003 at 14:59:33, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>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). >>> >>> >> >> >>Of course. But your assumption is invalid, it seems. (assuming you handle >>the hash table correctly). >> >>Not to mention the fact that the _thread_ was about checks in the >>quiescence search only, and not the normal search. When in the q-search >>the concept of "leaf nodes" doesn't apply. Nor does the concept of >>"depth remaining" since by definition depth remaining == 0 to get into the >>q-search in the first place. >> >>But none of that stops Vincent from rambling on about something totally >>unrelated to the discussion at hand, of course. It is really bad when he >>is both wrong, and what he is wrong about has nothing to do with the >>ongoing discussion either. Sort of like two strikes on one pitch. > >WE all know that you never read what is written here Bob, don't apologize for >that. If you scroll back a few postings here you will see that i asked Omid >after what he did in the normal NON-qsearch. And you will see that I _specifically_ addressed the q-search, which you followed up on with irrelevant nonsense. > >Now you guess like a real american that you can away by referring to some >subject that originally started this thread but that shows your weakness. A weakness is shown, but not mine. > >Body part after body part is getting chopped away from you. To keep saing that >you still got your thumb isn't enough. Unfortunately, it seems that the first body part you lost was between your ears. Rendering all the other parts totally useless..
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.