Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:18:35 08/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2004 at 15:43:00, Scott Gasch wrote: >On August 24, 2004 at 11:46:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 24, 2004 at 11:34:31, Alessandro Scotti wrote: >> >>>On August 24, 2004 at 11:24:28, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>> >>>>On August 24, 2004 at 10:40:15, Alessandro Scotti wrote: >>>> >>>>>Ok but then you don't propagate the mate score out of the quiesce, right? >>>> >>>>And why not? >>> >>>Well if I knew why I wouldn't be asking! (*) :-) >>> >>>For now my reason is: there is no proof that a score is mate out of quiesce, >>>because quiesce doesn't examine all possible moves but only part of them. After >>>reading several replies this doesn't seem to be a popular opinion, though, but >>>that's how I see things at present... >>> >>>(*) Hope English tenses are correct here! >> >> >>You miss the point. I reach a node X, I can play a move which lets my opponent >>mate me, or I can stand pat. The way around this is to notice that you are in >>check, and force the q-search to look at _all_ legal replies, and eliminate the >>"stand pat" option. >> >>Either way will produce a valid search result. The latter will find forced >>mates more accurately of course... > >To expand on what Bob said: also remember that if you have a position in the >qsearch where a side is in check BUT that side could have stood pat in the >previous qsearch positions then it does not really help to return a MATED score >now. You know that because they chose not to stand pat before that they are >"down". But because you have to assume that they had some other move option >than to continue trading / capturing when they chose not to stand pat, this >position is not forced and therefore not a true mate. > >In my qsearch I do something like this: > > Are we in check AND has the side on move never had the chance to stand pat > up to now? > > YES? Then do not allow a stand pat here and search all legal replies and > possibly return a MATED-IN-N score here. This position is forced. > > NO? Then allow a stand pat here and search a subset of the moves. Do not > return a MATED-IN-N score here even if you detect a mate because it is > not forced. > >This makes sense to me but I'd welcome any comments ;) > >Scott I do not do it. I know that mate socre is not going to be the score of the qasearch in earlier ply but it does not mean tha the mate cannot influence the score on previous ply. It is possible that thanks to mate score I can find that the side to move could do better in previous ply by stand pat. 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.