Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:07:44 01/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2001 at 03:11:56, Severi Salminen wrote: >> >>I do this, yes. Because if you know you are in check, most of the moves a >>normal move generator will produce are illegal. It is faster to simply not >>generate them. This has the added convenience of giving you a real easy way >>of detecting the case where you have only one legal move so you can extend. > >Oh well then, another move generator to do... > >>I didn't do this in Cray Blitz so there is an alternative. Do the normal >>search, but each time you search a legal move, inc a counter. When you are >>done searching all moves, if the counter == 1, there was only one legal one >>to search. Search it _again_ but one ply deeper... > >Sounds time consuming...I hate all these researchs :) I _do_ use a legal move >counter (for other purposes) but I believe it is faster to generate only legal >"check evasive" moves as I allready pass the "being in check" information to the >next ply. > >Severi I agree that I like my current approach that knows to extend _before_ doing the search at all. But the re-search is not horrible and it is exactly the kind of thing you would do if you implement some form of singular extensions... or something similar such as the "threat extension" described by the deep thought guys...
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.