Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:18:00 04/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 1998 at 13:26:54, Peter Fendrich wrote: >On April 15, 1998 at 13:12:57, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>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. >> >When I wrote my first chess program about 1980 SEE wasn't a known >concept, at least not for me! > >>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. > >The SEE code itself should be faster than Qsearch, shouldn't it? > yes... no recursive calls, and so forth. *but* it will fail in the wild tactical positions, and win in the quiet positions. You have to choose which you like. >> >>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. >> >I dont't follow you here. If QSearch has less job to do, then the SEE >has as well. The QSearch is just replaed by the SEE. > >>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. > >I have two versions of SEE, a fast one used to order generated captures >and one more accurate and slower to replace the QSearch. > >> >> >> Christophe
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.