Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 13:49:57 12/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2001 at 15:05:22, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. If your full QS eats 80% of the time I would say that limiting QS is indeed a must. However my QS (full) takes about 10-15% (25-30% with checks) and so the picture is quite different then. Ed
This page took 0.01 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.