Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 22:38:11 10/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 1998 at 12:07:46, Dan Homan wrote: > >On October 02, 1998 at 17:38:47, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On October 02, 1998 at 16:19:08, Dan Homan wrote: >> >>>On the idea of a 'dumb as a rock' qsearch.... Mine is even dummer. >>>I don't use an SEE in the qsearch, but rather simply score the move >>>based on the value of the attacked pieces minus the value of the >>>attacking piece (if the attacked piece is defended). This will >>>avoid some captures that are sound (because sometimes we have multiple >>>attacks on the square), but it is quite fast and leads to a small qsearch. >>>I also toss out captures that lose material or don't bring me near >>>alpha. >> >>Basically you'll almost always check P x something, but will almost never check >>Q x something, right? > >Yep.... unless Q x Q or Q x something which is not defended and brings the >material score near alpha. OK, this isn't the pure case then. The case I just ran a test on, based upon your post was something like this: AxB, where A>B, never try this. AxB, where A=B, call it a swap for sorting purposes. AxB, where A<B, call it a winning capture and assume that it wins B-A material. The rest of my program was the same as it always. The difference between this and what I normally do is that I use a static exchange evaluator on these last two cases in order to get a more accurate picture of the outcome. This scored worse on the ECM tactical suite that I always run. I would report the exact number here but it suddenly occured to me that the machine is busy running another test, so I can't mess with it. bruce
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.