Author: José Carlos
Date: 00:11:32 11/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2001 at 21:09:37, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On November 20, 2001 at 21:02:45, James Swafford wrote: > >>So you're arguing my original point. After some consideration >>I think either approach is fine. > >I think it's silly not to limit if the limit doesn't cost >anything and may save you ass someday or in some freak >positions. > >>Or are you proposing something else? Perhaps a different depth or >>something dynamic? > >I use max quiescent depth = nominal search depth * 2 > >-- >GCP I used to limit it in the first versions of my program. Some day I commented here and Christophe told me something like "there must be something broken in your program; don't limit the qsearch, you'll save nodes because of the better information". I fixed my problem (move ordering) and have been working perfectly since then. I also did extensive testing some time ago and non-limiting-qsearch version got better results. José C.
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.