Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 12:05:22 12/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2001 at 13:59:25, Ed Schröder wrote: >On December 28, 2001 at 08:14:02, Uri Blass wrote: > >>if you extend the qsearch too much you may get >>often irrelevant positions that you analyze. > >So? > >What you get back is an accurate score of the leaf, the only thing that counts. > >Limiting QS to 6,7... plies is a bad thing because it will return an unreliable >score too many times. > >Ed It is not as bad as it sounds really, not if you sort them by MVV-LVA. If I limit QS to e.g. 3 plies, then I can afford 1 ply extra for the whole tree. OK, I don't use SEE now, maybe that will speed up QS enough so that is affordable, but for right now my program is the overall strongest by using QS of only 3 plies deep (I tested against itself). And actually it almost never begins a losing capture sequence. If I do a full QS then >80% of the time is spent in there, that is a complete overkill IMO, since chess is not 80% capture moves. It is very much a trade off, and dependent on the rest of the program. -S.
This page took 0.02 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.