Author: Will Singleton
Date: 08:58:06 09/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
Thanks Stuart. Chess programming, as you know, is strange. Sometimes you'll make a change you just *know* has to help, and it makes things worse. And sometimes a logically poor idea can improve things. I think this is because we aren't dealing with perfect information. That is, a code change can affect the execution of other code, which in turn affects other code, with the result being that the original code change might not always be the real reason the behavior changes. So you end up with one guy who has very good results from a particular innovation, while others report no change or worse results. So, I wish I could present a theoretically sound argument as to why no-nulls-near-leafs works for you and me, but my methods are almost always empirical. btw, while I appreciate the prize, I am an amateur, therefore I can't accept. I'm sure Uri could use it, though. :) Will
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.