Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:40:16 08/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2000 at 11:01:45, Ernst A. Heinz wrote:
>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=
I do not disagree with you about extensions, but I disagree about SQearch, even
it is very simple. Have you read my other post in which I explain what the
problem is, in my opinion?
Christophe
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.