Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 11:58:12 01/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2002 at 14:16:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 07, 2002 at 12:06:01, David Rasmussen wrote: > >> >>But won't that just make the capture sequences that ends with a king capture, >>look very good? > > >No, because my SEE "minimaxes" the scores. If one side captures with the >king and the other side then captures the king, the minimax in the SEE >code will decide "OK, I won't make that king capture because then the opponent >will capture my king for even more gain..." > >Works fine. :) > Of course, my brain damage... > > > >> >>If the value of the king is 100 pawns, the capture sequence I mentioned above, >>would stop after the queen has captured the king, and this capture would then >>get the value of 101 instead of 1 (disregarding that the king is actually mated. >>Just pretend that the knight on d7 is gone). There might be other captures in >>the position that wins a queen, and as such gets a value of 9, but this capture >>winning only a pawn, will look better as it will have a value of 101. Isn't that >>a problem? Couldn't it just be solved by saying "If we capture a king, the value >>of this sequence is the SEE value two moves before the king is captured"? >> >>/David > >You should be doing that _anyway_ since _no_ capture is "forced" in chess, >only in checkers. So at any point the side on move can choose to make a capture >or "stand pat". If your SEE doesn't work like that, it will deliver broken >scores and screw up move ordering beyond belief... Yep, I already do this... /David
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.