Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:12:57 04/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 1998 at 13:01:42, Peter Fendrich wrote:
>I am trying a swapoff algorithm (sometimes called SEE) instead of the
> more classic quiescence search.
>The extra time saved by this can be used for more agressive extensions
>or better evaluation.
>The drawback is of cource the increased risk for tactical mistakes.
>
>In short depths the swapoff makes too many mistakes to be useful but
>when the depth increases I see less of the mistakes but still have
>that extra time it saves for me.
>
>In my opinion it should be a break even, at some depth limit, between
>these two alg's and beyond that limit the swapoff is the best choice.
>
>Comments?
>
>/Peter
The swapoff idea is the first thing that comes in mind when someone
begins to write a chess program. That's how I begun, at least.
IMO it is not as fast as a simple QSearch. This is counterintuitive, but
as depth increase, QSearch has less and less job to do, because there
are more and more alphabeta cutoffs before or on entering in the
QSearch.
On the other hand, a SEE has always the same amount of job to do,
whatever the depth is. In any case, more job than QSearch.
And I don't even mention the huge blunders you will never get rid off
with your SEE, even if you make it very clever.
Just my opinion, based on experience.
Anyway, writting a good SEE is useful, because you can use it for
selection purposes.
Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.