Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 07:05:09 05/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2000 at 05:29:01, blass uri wrote: >On May 24, 2000 at 18:23:23, Heiner Marxen wrote: > >>Unfortunately, detection of a "threat" is not for free. It is not even >>defined with absolute clarity. Maybe some time I will consider it more closely, >>but currently there are many other things to change in Chest that are more >>important to me. > >1)You can detect threats only close to the root and not everywhere. > >2)You can try to search for mate when you define checks and moves with mate >threat that are close to the root as 1 ply and other moves as 2 plies. Ah, that is a really interesting idea! May be that is really better than allowing for a fixed number of quiet moves. I will consider that one seriously. Thanks for sharing your ideas! >Even if you do not detect mate threat I think that using different depth for >checks and other moves is better than regular search or search that allow the >attacker only one quiet move because if the search allow the attacker only one >quiet move you will never find mate when the attacker does 2 quiet moves. The "one" quiet move was just an example. I considered it a variable to be decided by the user/caller as part of the job (like the normal depth). >Uri Heiner
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.