Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:18:42 09/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2004 at 10:32:53, martin fierz wrote: >On September 15, 2004 at 09:53:53, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>Anyone know of some code somewhere that implements >>at least part (or all) of the originally described >>singular extension and/or any modifications to it that >>have proven worthwhile (if any)? >> >>I am curious what mediocre (or better) results people >>have gotten with singular extension. Originally Anantharaman >>hypothesized that it wouldn't be good at the slower >>speeds of most programs at the time and would require >>fast speeds to show effect. Has this proven true or >>false in the intervening 15 years? >> >>Is singular extension now generally discredited as a >>non-reproducible singularity in and of itself? >> >>Thanks, >> >>Stuart > >AFAIK, SE is 'interesting' in the sense that it does enable programs to solve >certain positions faster, but of course you pay a price. and again AFAIK, nobody >is really using it these days, because the price seems too high to pay. i.e. in >games it's no improvement. > >just because the deep blue team used SE doesn't mean it's any good. remember, >they also decided not to use null-move, which was an established concept by >then. > >cheers > martin Remember also that _others_ use/used SE. Cray Blitz did starting in 1993. Wchess (Kittinger used the PV-singular half of SE.) I suspect others did/do as well. IE we know that Ferret had an implementation of SE.
This page took 0.01 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.