Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:16:23 12/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2001 at 02:09:49, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>On December 28, 2001 at 01:44:04, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On December 27, 2001 at 20:39:31, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>
>>>On December 27, 2001 at 15:47:33, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>There are practical cases when the qsearch include
>>>>hundreds of nodes
>>>
>>>Hundreds of nodes are insignificant.
>>>
>>>Every node you search that doesn't end up in the PV is arguably wasted.
>>>
>>>It has been pointed out to you that if you do static evaluation of a dynamic
>>>position, the results are absolutely worthless. I do not believe you've
>>>responded to this argument. Do you disagree with it?
>>>
>>>-Tom
>>
>>The results are not absolutely worthless
>>
>>I can also use a special evaluation
>>to reduce the demage and I agree that using evaluate that only count pieces in
>>the board is not the right evaluation.
>>I expect the side to move to earn something(I can assume that the side to move
>>earn half of the material that it can capture and I think that I have better
>>ideas that do not cost me a lot of time).
>>
>>Uri
>
>Some earlier programs did not do qsearches (due to lack of processor power) but
>they did do SEE of the pieces on the board during evaluation. Seems like this is
>what you're interested in.
I would like to point out that in most of the cases, using a SEE is MORE
EXPENSIVE than doing a real, unlimited QSearch.
It sounds strange, but the reason is that in most of the cases the QSearch will
search no node (no capture available or eval>beta) or only one node and stop,
which is faster than calling your SEE. Naturally that depends on the speed of
your SEE, but in all my programs (slow searchers and fast searchers), using SEE
instead of QSearch was a loser.
And using a SEE at the horizon nodes is extremely unreliable!
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.