Author: Tony Werten
Date: 04:35:01 07/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2004 at 05:49:44, Tord Romstad wrote: >On July 07, 2004 at 05:43:49, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On July 07, 2004 at 05:22:22, Tord Romstad wrote: >> >>>On July 07, 2004 at 02:26:30, Tony Werten wrote: >>> >>>>>5 3 .6 mate-at-a-glance >>>> >>>>From my experience, the effort is higher, since it's a very dangerous piece of >>>>code. Specially since other wrong scoring seems to get damped by alpha beta, but >>>>a wrong score by a maag is deadly. >>> >>>This depends on how you use it. When I used static mate detection, I didn't >>>return a mate score, but just used the information for move ordering. The >>>mating >>>move was searched first. This works very well, even if the mate detection is >>>correct only 99% of the time. >> >>Yes, but that's not a mate at a glance but a move ordering trick. > >Technically speaking you are right, but the effect is exactly the same >as a "mate at a glance". > >>Less effort but also less result. > >I agree about less effort, but less result? The only disadvantage of >using the static mate threat detection only for move ordering is that >you have to do an extra makemove/unmakemove before returning a mate >score. Not an expense worth mentioning ... I understand the difference. A mate at a glance should go further than a mate in 1. Mate in 1 is easy, specially if you have attacktables. eg you give a check at the back rank, your opponent can put various pieces between your checking piece and his king, but they are all undefended and can be captured, so the maag returns checkmate in 3. If this happens in quiescence, it's not sure your normal search would find it as well, even if you do some plies of checking moves in qsearch. Tony > >Tord
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.