Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:10:32 05/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 2002 at 03:40:29, Steve Maughan wrote: that's exactly the problem with extensions. They let the tree explode simply. I'm not sure how long we can keep using expensive extensions. When search depth get real big then the effect of extensions is you find any trick of course immediately, but you search plies less deeply >I have recently been tinkering with threat extensions (TE). I'd definitely like >to include some form of TE but I have encountered some problems of tree >explosion. > >What is happening is that the null move routine is detecting a mating threat and >I'm extending by one ply at ply[x]. I then try a move (at ply[x]) that doesn't >aviod the threat. In reply the opponent plays a sub-optimal move at ply[x+1] >that does not lead to mate even though a forced mating move does exist. At >plt[x+2] I then detect a threat and extend again... > >This sequence leads to a tree explosion. Is there any common wisdom as to how >to avoid this? Some ideas that I've had are: > >1) Only extend by a fraction - inelegant solution IMO >2) Store the rely to the null move that gave the checkmate and make this the >Killer move for the next ply - didn't seem to work well - still some tree >explosion. > >Has anyone any ideas? > >Thanks, > >Steve
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.