Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:20:25 11/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2001 at 04:33:10, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >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. > >I think it's silly to limit if the absence of a limit doesn't cost >anything and may save you ass someday or in some freak >positions. > >If one has a SEE maybe one can use the value of this function at some >stage of course to limit the qsearch. > >Ralf > > Dont' search captures that appear to lose material. That and the fact that each capture removes one piece is limit enough to keep the q-search reasonably small... >> >>>Or are you proposing something else? Perhaps a different depth or >>>something dynamic? >> >>I use max quiescent depth = nominal search depth * 2 >> >>-- >>GCP
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.