Author: Georg v. Zimmermann
Date: 06:54:07 03/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2001 at 21:07:31, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On March 25, 2001 at 12:17:56, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On March 25, 2001 at 03:51:02, Pham Minh Tri wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>>I am wondering why we do not search checking moves (moves check opponent king >>>but do not capture) in qsearch function. I think they are not “quiescence” and >>>should be searched as capture moves. Does anyone try them? >>>Thank very much for any explanation. >>>Pham >> >>A non-capturing fork is also not quiescence, and so is a move that attacks the >>queen with a pawn. >> >>You have to draw the line somewhere. Draw it wherever you think it makes your >>program strongest. >> >>bruce > >I wonder if best is something intermediate. My intuition tells me that >going from a full witdh search to a very handicapped search is too drastic. >would it be better to have different "degrees" of quiescent search? >Something like: In the first ply into quies() consider moves that >pin, forks, checks and captures. In the second ply, checks and captures. >After that, only captures. >Has anybody ever try this approach? I will try it one day. > >Regards, >Miguel I am doing that (promising checks in the first 3 ply after normal search) and its working well. Georg
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.