Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 02:32:48 05/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 1999 at 12:50:29, Dave Gomboc wrote: [snip] >>>very well. Another observation is that it is usually less work to prove that >>>you are too low than you are too high. This is due to the nature of minimaxing. >>> >> >>Yes. For this reason, for successive fail-highs, I add on 1 then 2 then 3 then >>4 then 5 etc etc. For successive fail-lows, I subtract 4, then 9, then 16, then >>25, then 36 etc. I have messed about with this a *lot*, and at the moment I'm >>happy with this. I use fail-soft, of course as you say. > >So if you search the window for +50, and the fail-soft returns 49, the next >null-window you try is 46? If the fail-soft returns 40, are you still using 46, >or are you using 40? > I'm glad you asked this. I was going to say that I start with the score I get back from the search, but at some point I must have changed it. I use the guess and then add (or subtract) the appropriate amount. If the result is outside the appropriate bound I just set the guess to be the bound +/- 1. If this isn't clear, I'll post the code, but it's pretty ugly - a result of changing it over and over, I guess. If I find time, I'll change it to see why I don't use the returned score as the basis for the next guess - I have the feeling that it didn't mix well with my approach to increasing the steps, but now I think about it, maybe I "fixed" the wrong thing. It wouldn't be the first time. Regards Andrew
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.