Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 14:19:38 01/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2002 at 17:10:12, Matthias Gemuh wrote: >On January 11, 2002 at 17:03:49, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>On January 11, 2002 at 16:59:04, Matthias Gemuh wrote: >> >>> >>>Such should not be necessary, except bug somewhere. >>>I find this "Mate in 4" at ply 5 (+5 extensions = 10 ply). >>>My exts are: >>>check: +1 ply >>>2 successive checks: +0.6 >>>promo: +1 >>>good recap: +0.5 >>>mate threat: +1 >>>single move: +0.75 >>>and some more less important ones. >> >>And you limit your extension at each ply to at most one? > >Yep! I do that > >And you apply single >>move extension _after_ limiting, like me? > >No. Why do that? I do that. That is the whole point of single check evasion extension. Otherwise, if you extend at checks it will never be applied! Miguel > >If yes, and you don't see the same >>thing, then I might have a bug. If no, then we are not comparable. >> >>/David
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.