Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 18:07:31 03/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2001 at 12:17:56, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On March 25, 2001 at 03:51:02, Pham Minh Tri wrote: > >>Hi, >>I am wondering why we do not search checking moves (moves check opponent king >>but do not capture) in qsearch function. I think they are not “quiescence” and >>should be searched as capture moves. Does anyone try them? >>Thank very much for any explanation. >>Pham > >A non-capturing fork is also not quiescence, and so is a move that attacks the >queen with a pawn. > >You have to draw the line somewhere. Draw it wherever you think it makes your >program strongest. > >bruce I wonder if best is something intermediate. My intuition tells me that going from a full witdh search to a very handicapped search is too drastic. would it be better to have different "degrees" of quiescent search? Something like: In the first ply into quies() consider moves that pin, forks, checks and captures. In the second ply, checks and captures. After that, only captures. Has anybody ever try this approach? I will try it one day. Regards, Miguel
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.