Author: Andrew Platt
Date: 10:16:44 09/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2004 at 13:05:00, David B Weller wrote: >check, pawn_2_7th, mate_threat are all here in abundance. > >I do only 1 ply total each ply, but I _was_ 'accumulating' them and then using >them later so _every_ extension got 'done' eventually even if 1 or 2 ply >later... > >so, a pawn to 7th which gave check _AND_ was in a node where there was a >mate_threat would accumulate 3 ply of extensions to be used over the next 3 >plies > >I think I need to work on that ... :) Yes. It looks like it would be a simple matter to disable that, run against some test suite you have numbers for and compare. I bet the results are largely better in the version where you restrict to a single ply. It doesn't seem that there is any real difference between spreading the extensions lower down and just increasing the depth by > 1 at the node you generate all those extensions. You still end up extending a bunch of moves that wouldn't qualify for any extension by themselves. Andy.
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.