Author: martin fierz
Date: 01:15:19 10/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2004 at 22:10:48, Zach Wegner wrote: >>when i'm in check in alphabeta i don't enter the qsearch. if i run into a check >>in the qsearch, i drop out to alphabeta again. i don't see any other sensible >>way of doing this. > >What? The way he's doing it works better, because you don't try a bunch of >ridiculous null moves, hash lookups, internal iterative deepening, extensions, >etc. etc., or code to check that it shouldn't be done. Anything that is done in >your main search that should be done when in check in qsearch can be coded in. >Going back into the main search is the cheap way out, IMO. i disagree. going back into the main search is the right way out IMO. let's say you duplicate your code in the qsearch for the case you're in check as you suggest. then you change something in the way you handle in-checks. => you have to change it in two places. a very bad idea... the speed gain you get for your version is probably tiny - i admit that it will be faster. but ease of implementation is much more important than a % or two in speed, IMO. most amateur programs are weak because they have bugs, not because they are slow. cheers martin
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.