Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 07:13:44 12/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2001 at 07:11:56, leonid wrote: >Hi, Heiner! Hello Leonid! >By thinking about your remark about defender side, I found that I did one >mistake. To be sure that this time I not lost next "small" nuance, I went >actually back to my mate solver code to read it before speaking. There I found >what I wanted to find and even why I was confused about "active" and "passive" >moves. But before every thing else, exact mate solver move construction. > > >Each move, composed from attacking and defending ply, contain identical sorting >for both sides. The same move generator and two move sorting for two plys. Both >sides try as hard as they can reach mate. > >In attacking side it is only move that lead to mate that is solved as the next >"best move". I.e. you save a move that does solve this current position. >On defending side it is move that lead to mate, or last move of search that is >saved as "best move". > >Previous mistake from my side was in saying that it is only move that lead to >mate that is saved for defending side. Again, you save that move, that "solves" this current position for the defender. A defender "solves" a position if he avoids its own forced mate. Correct? >One mistake, even before my last, I found when reading description of defending >side. There "best move" is saved in variable that is "best passive". In reality, >here this move have nothing to do with "best passive move", even if it use this >variable. This variable have sense in other part of chess program. > > >Sorry for mistake! Never mind! Thanks for clearing up! Some (minor) questions remain: - meaning of "active" and "passive" move: I suspect an "active" move is one that checks the opposing king. Correct? - Storing saved "best moves" for each ply: do you index from top (i.e. with the depth you have searched into the tree, already), or do you index from bottom (i.e. by the remaining depth to go/search)? Intuitively I would index by remaining depth, but the other way may make sense, also. >Leonid. Cheers, Heiner
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.