Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:12:23 06/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2000 at 11:03:42, David Rasmussen wrote: >I find that a lot of the games that my program loses, it loses because it >doesn't search checking moves in qsearch. >Anyway, how do people do that most effectively? I would like not to generate all >moves in the qsearch (just the captures), but then I will miss the noncapturing >checks. I did them in Cray Blitz, and in early versions of Crafty. But I haven't done checks in the q-search since just prior to the Jakarta WMCCC event. You can control them to an extent... ie when you get to the q-search, you can consider a check. But if you look at a capture at the first ply or 2, then there is little point in doing checks deeper in the q-search because the 'stand pat' will allow you to avoid the checks totally, earlier in the tree. I personally don't do them because I don't like the q-search at all. It is unreliable, and way too selective to trust. You show me a position where the best q-search move is a check (say a capturing check) and I'll show you a position where the best response to a capture is _not_ another capture, but rather a quiet move that pins or indirectly attacks something. The q-search misses way too much. I think it is more profitable to make your basic search better by extending in the right places, since it already has no real inherent pruning errors other than a lack of depth. I'd like to drive the q-search to almost nothing, as that would eliminate many errors.
This page took 0.01 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.