Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:48:06 02/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 29, 2004 at 12:20:03, Joshua Haglund wrote: >On February 29, 2004 at 03:20:30, Matthias Gemuh wrote: > >> >> >> >>My engine has a very unstable and unreliable search. >>Sometimes I think I implemented what you are proposing. >>My opinion is that the blindness introduced by such tricks would really hurt. >> >>/Matthias. > >yes! it wouldn't do the best search if it didn't reach great depth where f = 3; >If your engine searches deep try ply > 12. If it doesn't try ply 8, etc... :) > > >I have reason to believe a person will gain atleast 1 ply in the same amount of >searched time. > >example >time = 30; >ply 7 = 4 seconds. >ply 8 = 13 >no more plies reached. > >// with idea. >time = 30; >ply 7 = 1 second >ply 8 = 5 >ply 9 = 20 seconds > >Maybe this would be good for long time controls? Skip shallow and go to deeper >lines. > >Thanks for your reply, > >Joshua Haglund I can only say that I do not understand your idea. If you suggest to do selective search in the first plies then it seems to me a bad idea because you may miss important moves. It is more logical to be selective in the last plies and programs do it for example by qsearch but even then I do not see why do you use fixed number of moves and the number of moves that you search should be dependent on the position. prunning illogical moves is something important to do and programmers know it so it is not new information. 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.