Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 13:55:23 03/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 22, 2004 at 12:11:19, Heiner Marxen wrote: >I have not yet looked at fruit source, but from my own recollection how >to do ETC... in Chest I restrict the usage of ETC to non-trivial depths. >If the expected work without ETC probing is too small, the overhead of >ETC is does not pay off. May be fruit does restrict it in such a way, >that even the additional overhead of move make/undo is small compared >to the potential savings. Are you using any search extensions in Chest? I think, this is a real problem for a normal playing engine. Assume some "mate threat extensions" (decision for such an extension for example by doing a shallow search after a null move). I see no method, to keep the extensions consistent for ETC, without doing that search again. And now, this is not only a makemove, but a real search with many makemoves ... Already keeping normal extensions (that do not depend on a new search, only on the position and previous moves) consistent seems not easy, for a "grown" engine, that did not think of encapsulating search extension decisions in a function, but rather has it all over the place in a long search routine. It might still be an idea that works, when some special searches are included to calculate extensions. Cheers, Dieter
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.