Author: martin fierz
Date: 07:06:46 09/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2004 at 09:53:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: [snip] ok,ok, i believe you. i just never saw anybody here saying it worked for them, but i distinctly remembered people saying it didn't work for them. >Bruce has reported _lots_ of test data here in CCC. Including ECM results with >and without, etc... but... do you really believe a tactical test set like ECM is the right way to test SE? and what about the question pham already posted: in http://www.brucemo.com/compchess/programming/extensions.htm#singular bruce wrote the stuff below in 2001 - not very enthusiastic about SE if you ask me! i probably based my anti-SE-bias in part on this without remembering where i had it from, i read bruce's pages a long time ago. cheers martin "Singular extension This extension is the search heuristic centerpiece of Deep Thought, the strongest computer chess player of the 1980's, and precursor to Deep Blue. The idea is that if one move is significantly better than all of the other moves (a singular move), it should be extended. This can be interpreted as a more general case of the recapture and single response extensions. It encompasses these, but also can be used in cases where the singular move is not a recapture and where the side making the move isn't in check. I don't know why it worked in DT, but it seems to me that this is a loss-seeking extension. I have never seen anyone claim in an article to be able to get good results with this extension, so for academic purposes I think this is unproven. I've played with it myself and had some success in getting it to solve tactical problems faster. The down side is that you get less general-case depth when you use this, because you have to do extra searches to test for singularity."
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.