Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 01:36:02 01/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2005 at 18:03:09, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On January 27, 2005 at 13:12:09, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >... > >> >>BTW I don't like the probcut idea for chess. Too often the eval just needs a >>certain amount of search - for example, a manoever Nf3-g1-e2-c3-d5. It looks bad >>until the end. Of course it's a question of statistics - one thing is for sure, >>search is a really strange thing. > >Missing deep threats is part and parcel of any forward pruning idea unless you >have solved chess. That's just a given. Otherwise you should reject all such >pruning including null move pruning. Do you really want to that? > Of course that's true. What I meant is that I don't buy the probcut principle - I don't believe there is anything special about a move that fails the same way at shallow depths - or at least that it's not special enough to justify unbalancing the tree. Indisciminantly unbalancing the tree will weaken the search of course ... Vas >> >>Vas
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.