Author: Landon Rabern
Date: 13:26:06 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 16:08:36, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On July 19, 2000 at 12:03:10, Landon Rabern wrote: > >>When I put this into my program so that >>if (attackervalue>DefenderValue)&&(SEE>=0) I keep the move as well, I got worse >>results on the WAC test suite. > >I don't get why you still do the AttackerValue > Defendervalue check >when you can simply rely on the SEE result. What about the moves where >DefenderValue > AttackerValue but SEE < 0 ? That case cannot happen because the original attacker can choose to stop attacking after the first attack. The reason I do it this way is to save a call to SEE, when defendervalue>attackervalue. Landon > >-- >GCP
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.