Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:36:14 12/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2004 at 16:00:08, José Carlos wrote: >On December 27, 2004 at 15:40:24, Steve Maughan wrote: > >>The basic idea is to prune, or reduce the search depth, of moves that have had >>little success in the past. This pseudo code may help: >> >> make_move; >> if (moves_made_already > 3) >> and (not_in_check) >> and (opponent_not_in_check) >> and (move_does_not_attack_opponents_king) >> and (history_value * 128 < best_history_value_from_this_node) >> then >> prune or reduce_depth; >> >>As I'm sure you can imagine the "3" and "128" values can be sources of >>experimentation. >> >>I hope this helps! >> >>Regards, >> >>Steve > > Hi Steve, > Why "and (not_in_check)"? I mean, if you're going to reduce because you're >almost sure you're gonna fail low, being in check is not likely to suddenly make >you fail high... Am I missing something? > > José C. The problem is that when you are in check you cannot trust statistics that is about quiet positions so the "almost sure" may be wrong unless you have some different table. Uri
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.