Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:24:58 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2003 at 09:55:59, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On October 14, 2003 at 04:20:13, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>Body part after body part is getting chopped away from you. To keep saing that
>>>you still got your thumb isn't enough.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>That's right Bob. Vincent is not only wrong in general in what he says, but he
>>is also off topic.
>>
>>Not only that but in general he is wrong, off topic, and speaking with great
>>authority.
>>
>>That's too much for a man alone. I'm starting to think that Vincent is actually
>>a team of writers. One finds the way to be wrong. Another one finds the way to
>>slip to off-topic, but subtly. Another one is specialized in rethorics.
>>
>>We finally have a forth one who tries to find nasty strokes. Sentences starting
>>by "As the real american that you are...".
>>
>>All in all I would say they are doing a nice entertaining job. :)
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>It just proves the old "if you put enough monkeys in a room and give them each
>a typewriter, they will produce something that looks sensible."
>
>Of course, you left out one important characteristic. Once he has seen that
>he has hopelessly screwed up in facts or whatever, he just disappears with no
>further comments, hoping everyone will forget until the next time.
>
>It does get old to see such blanket statements made, giving new CC people
>the idea that he not only knows what he is talking about, but that what he
>says is gospel truth. That's the real danger. Being a master of
>misinformation and excuses doesn't help anyone.
That's exactly what concerns me.
Christophe
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.