Author: Bert van den Bosch
Date: 17:28:52 09/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 2004 at 18:59:06, David B Weller wrote: >I am joking ... kind of .. > >Has anyone else noticed that selective searching tends to 'amplify' the effect >of the 'kind' of selectivity? > >Ie, the same search of the same position with and without extensions, [barring >any particular tactics] will reult in a different score - usually amplifying >[even if just a little] the parts of the score most related to the extension. > >I do not have data to support this, but it seems I have observed it, and wonder >if anyone else has. > >My point being - quies() 'extends' all captures and therefore tends to encourage >them [ie, captures in search() become necessary to achieve the 'objective' seen >by quies().... search() becomes 'commited' to making captures] > >Does this make any sense at all? > >-David Wouldn't it just be because (equal)captures are usually high on the move ordering list? When I put extensions off the cutoff rate for equal hits(which are candidates for recapture extension) drops about 3 percentages(tested from opening position), so that seems the kind of behaviour you mention. With and without extensions the cutoff rate is pretty high for them (95-99%). Bert
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.