Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 02:47:43 12/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
>snip >second example is WAC 31 > >[D]rb3qk1/pQ3ppp/4p3/3P4/8/1P3N2/1P3PPP/3R2K1 w - - >bm Qxa8 d6 dxe6; id "WAC.031 > >Qxa8 is a bad move and I do not understand how it is one of >the solutions 1.Qxa8 Bxh2+ 2.Kxh2 Qxa8 3.d6 f6 4.d7 Qd8 5.Ne1 wins for white. The queen is a bad blockader. Sune > >d6 dxe6 are good moves and g3 is also a winning move that does not appear in the >solutions > >I already tested my program in the first >31 problems of WAC and it could solve almost all of them >in less than a second. > >The only problem that it could not solve in a reasonable time >is WAC 2 >I guess that it needs depth 13 in order to solve it >and the estimated time that >it needs to get this depth is at least some hours. > >The hardest problem for it >(from the problems that it solved) was WAC 22 >but I consider it as a positional problem because >there are many moves that win a pawn for white to get equality >in material. > >Qh5 is one of them and my program found Nxf7 at depth 4 >but changed it's mind at depth 6 to Qh5 only to change >it's mind later again to Nxf7 at depth 7. > >The search techniques are similiar to TSCP except >limiting the qsearch to 7 plies > >I believe that it is illogical to let the qsearch to explode >and it is also illogical to let it to explode only when the >program search deeper. > >Qsearch is selective search and if you search many plies >forward then you cannot trust your score and >if you cannot trust your score there is no logical reason >to waste more nodes in order to find a score and >it seems better to me to save time and to >return static evaluation. > >Uri
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.