Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 03:48:22 01/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2002 at 05:14:44, Uri Blass wrote: >>>If you find the legal moves incrementally, how can you check for >>>numberofmoves==1 at the first move, or do you simply forget about it then? >>> >> >>In the case of check, I create only check evasions, that is, _real_ legal moves. >>Partly because it is faster for move generation, and partly because it makes the >>check for this extension a lot faster. >> >>>And why the inCheck and numberOfMoves==1, can't you forget about the inCheck and >>>just extend +1 if there is only one legal move? >> >>No because I only do it of there's a check also. I don't generate real legal >>moves at all nodes, only check nodes. > >If I understand correctly numberofMoves means number of legal moves when you are >in check Yes >and number of pseudo legal moves when you are not in check. I'm not sure how he does that, I think he finds the moves incrementally which is faster than generating all the moves. It would be a problem then to know how many possible moves there are, which is why he needs the inCheck condition. I do it differently, I almost never generate only legal moves. I simply do not know when the king is in check (I don't use bitboards for movegen), so I have to go one ply deeper to see if the king is captured. This will lead to trouble at some point, so I'm thinking of changing it. >In this case you still can extend +1 only if NumberofMoves=1 because the only >case when Numberofmoves=1 the number of legal moves is always at most 1(it can >be also 0 in some stalemate situations when there is only 1 pseudo legal move) There will be more than 1 pseudo legal move if there are more than one attacked square around the king. >Uri
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.