Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: About qsearch...

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 12:07:40 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

I think that if the result of the qsearch is based
on selective search of more than 7 plies forward
then you are going to be wrong often even
when you do not limit the qsearch so the question
is if you lose more than you gain from it.


Limiting the number of moves in the qsearch
in the last plies may be a good idea and
I agree that deciding about a limit of 7 plies
is not the best idea but deciding about no limit
for the qsearch espacially if you let checks in the qsearch
based on another post can cause the qsearch tree to explode
and it is better to use evaluation that is less correct than
not being able to search deep.

I may consider also having checks in the qsearch but
it is clear that I need to prevent the qsearch to explode so
basically the qsearch should include less moves in later plies
and you can finish with only one move in the last ply
that is also a way to prevent the qsearch to explode.

Christophe explained in another post that
he does SEE by this way and it may be
a good idea to finish the qsearch by this way
when the only question is
how many plies you need to search before
you finish the qsearch in that way.

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.