Author: Ernst A. Heinz
Date: 08:01:45 08/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Christophe, >Yes, but have you seen my own reply to your answer? > >It's not to be picky actually. I think there is a serious problem with the trick >when you have a QSearch, and I wanted to have your opinion. Yes, still as I said before -- personally, I do not think that the quiescence search is the _real_ problem. A variable-depth capture-only quiescence without any kind of alpha-beta related stuff (e.g. futility pruning and lazy evaluation) would be a perfectly fine black-box routine for scoring horizon nodes that should work together with the negascout "trick" _without_ losing theoretical correctness. The "trick" only fails with variable depths in the _main_ search layer because that is where the true fixed-depth 2-ply research always yields the same result as the original zero-window search. Have you read Dave Gomboc's answer where he tells about Jonathan Schaeffer's experience with the negascout "trick". As soon as he added extensions in the _main_ search, he ran into problems. If, as I assume, he already had a quiescence search before, this would provide empirical evidence and support for my argument. Cheers, =Ernst=
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.