Author: Sergei S. Markoff
Date: 23:17:28 03/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hello! >Interesting. I've always thought that checks should be given some form of >priority in the move ordering list. Of course they will be expensive to >calculate but could be well worthwhile. Please do let us know the results. Ok, seems to be good. I'm trying now to implement a lot of knowledge in move orderering -- it's my favorite way to integrate knowledge anywhere :) The checks with SEE>=0 seems to be good in middlegame. Also pawn pushes with SEE>=0 after castling and excluding pawns of king shelter. Also I'm trying to implement some attacks info -- "forks" e.t.c. Hint: expensive knowledge can be implemented when remaining depth >2*INCPLY or >3*INCPLY e.t.c. For example SEE for non-capturing moves. In endgame we must keep in view pawn pushes when SEE>=0 and target piece is defended or opponent's king is out of square. Checks in endgame usually good if 1) it also attacks other piece with threat to capture it with SEE>0 2) there are no evasion moves that going king to the center. There are a lot of knowledge that can be used here. I will report community about results. >PS I ask this every time - but when will the UCI version of SmarThink be >completed? I wait with anticipation :) It will be. But I'm waiting for ST that will be significantly stronger than Ruffian 1.05. Best wishes, Sergei
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.