Author: David B Weller
Date: 08:17:17 09/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Charles, I've been all over the map on this one, I think. BTW - if you extend check-ing moves, eg., 3/4 ply, sometimes they dont get extended - so in that case, you may want to find mate in quies(). I have always had mixed feelings about all this. On the one hand, I agree with Mr. Hyatt and dont want to clutter the already very erroneous qsearch() with too much. On the other hand, I hate the idea of search depending upon such a poor 'definition' of 'quiet'. [ie., checks near by, or worse, your mated!] The trade off of course is speed. When I use checks [and checking moves] in my qsearch, average search depth goes way down, but still plays ok because the information is more stable i THINK Which has me puzzled a bit... how does a slow searcher like GES ever win against the likes of these speed demons. [believe me, its not because of positional prowess] It must be because all TOO often, all that interesting stuff that is 'seen' by the faster searcher [due mostly to selectivity, i guess] isnt really reliable. ie,. quies() isnt returning quiet positions... thoughts welcome, nay coveted... -David
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.