Author: Brian Richardson
Date: 15:16:07 10/18/00
Most better programs seem to use SEE. I have not implemented this yet in Tinker, but have some concerns. I realize the point of SEE is "static" (and meant to be much faster than recursive make/unmake move searching), but is it not a problem that the SEE is only concerned with attacks to one particuar square at a time? I would think that a series of exchanges would open up other significant move options that the SEE does not see (pardon the pun). I don't recall reading anything about SEE in ICCA or elsewhere and was wondering what others thought about this. Perhaps the move ordering (and pruning) benefits simply outweigh the incomplete analysis, sort of like the crude history score technique. Actually, I was also wondering about a history question--what do people think is better: One history table or history tables by side? Thanks Brian
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.