Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 10:59:54 08/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2004 at 13:54:27, Alessandro Damiani wrote: >On August 07, 2004 at 13:00:31, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>So I heard a lot about SEE from a lot of people >>and was fortunate enough to receive some good code >>from Alessandro. I implemented and tested it with >>many test cases and in all cases it gave the >>expected return from the exchange ok. >> >>Then with some other help I implemented this in >>the capture search. >> >>This program has some things that make SEE() not >>give a good result, in fact slightly worse (fewer >>nodes in same time) -- no speedup. >> >>1) evaluator is material and pc/sq lookup only >>2) routine to find attackers/defenders (to give to see) >> is not much faster or slower than makemv() >>3) I order all moves partly with MVV/LVA but do not >> discard directly on that unless the alpha/beta/pvs >> says to disard/cutoff. >> >>With these, the program did not speedup with SEE >>and slowed down. The program is PVS with null move. >> >>So that is the story -- I will leave the code in >>for a future day and future need. >> >>If someone with #1 and #2 got a good speedup from SEE, >>let me know. I am doing something wrong in that case. >>Or if you think there is some other way SEE can be used >>advantageously, let me know. Currently I only have it >>in the capture search since that's where I heard it had >>the most effect. >> >>Stuart > >Attack detection is a key issue. Since I am a Bitboarder I cannot tell you which >method is best for non-bitboarder. Ed Schröder's SEE is very good for >non-bitboarder, I think. See http://members.home.nl/matador/chess840.htm. > >Alessandro I carefully went over that page a couple weeks ago and there was mention made of "See Static Exchange Evaluator" but no discussion I could see on Ed's SEE in particular.
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.