Author: Colin Frayn
Date: 08:10:16 03/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2001 at 03:51:02, Pham Minh Tri wrote: >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? In ColChess I always tested Checking moves and also pawn pushes to the 7th/8th rank as part of the quiescence search. I found that this improved my tactical performance quite noticeably. Of course, it isn't wise to do this to infinite depth, but instead I introduced the idea of a 'wide' quiescence search, above which I test all captures, checks and pawn pushes. Below this depth I test only captures. Also, above this depth I generate all replies to checking positions and do not allow stand-pat moves. The depth of the wide-qsearch is generally a base value (0 or 1) plus an extra ply or two depending on how volatile the position is, and has recently been. e.g. I add on one ply (up to max. 3) for each checking position in the tree leading up to the qsearch. Cheers, Colin
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.