Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:51:37 07/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2000 at 17:46:18, Larry Griffiths wrote: >On July 24, 2000 at 14:30:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >Hmm... The Lady or the Tiger... > >> >>It depends on how you implement your search. There is nothing wrong with >>making moves that are illegal, and then at the next ply you capture the king >>and return a value that says "that move was illegal, ignore it." >> > >Yuk, Gag, Puk! Dont like this approach. Its the Tiger for sure. Think about this: 99%+ of all moves are perfectly legal. Do you want to do the incheck test on them to make sure they are legal, which means you do the incheck test for 100% of your moves. Or do you want to do the "I capture a king to prove your last move was illegal" which only happens 1% of the time. _that_ is the efficiency issue I mentioned. If you use null move you have to be careful, because null move will certainly fail high if you are mated. :) > >>Or you can check for in check after a move... It doesn't matter as far as >>playing legal chess goes, it simply becomes a matter of efficiency and how you >>want to write the search code. > >Do I smell Perfume :) Must be the Lady... > >This is my current approach and I must make it more efficent :) > >Larry.
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.