Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:11:41 05/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2005 at 17:55:57, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On May 30, 2005 at 13:37:55, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On May 30, 2005 at 11:27:46, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>>>But which also reduces EBF. You should have left out this paragraph. >>>> >>>>SE definitely INCREASES the EBF. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP >>> >>>Generally, even bad extensions reduce the EBF. >> >>Why would they? That makes no sense. > >Extentions are a form of selective search. Why shouldn't they? They really aren't. They just extend a branch here and there deeper than normal. But other branches are still searched just the same... Now if you want to argue that the "extended depth" is the normal depth, and all the non-extended branches are searched to a lesser depth then perhaps that case could be made. But for SE, the problem is that it isn't just an extension that gets triggered based on some static characteristic like whether or not the king is in check. It is necessary to do a significant search (albiet to a shallower than normal depth) to determine whether the extension should be triggered or not. And that is pure overhead increasing the EBF significantly. > >> >>>The only way I can think that could happen is if some type of redundant searching >>>is going on. >> >>SE needs a lot of extra searching to establish singularity. >> >>>Thank you for reinforcing my disinterest in SE. >> >>It's possible to do better than the DB implementation/method. >> >>-- >>GCP
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.