Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 11:22:27 01/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Uli, your question is absolutly not stupid. I am not sure - but i like it. You are absolutely right with your statement. I have not yet empirical confirmation in real games about it, i hope in the future. It's fun and thats the reason i'll never become a real professional chess programmer. My intention was, when i implement an expensive kingSafety-evaluation, scanning squares around, looking for the ability of the king, to escape, if a slider may (safe) check and much more, why not doing a few more statements to detect a mate? It's also a relict from my old Dos-IsiChess, where a much easier kind of static MateDetection was implemented (may be one reason of its weakness). Another intention is, doing nice things with BitBoards and learn to formulate Statements with them on a rather high abstraction level, most likely with inlined functions - and static MateDetection is a nice test environment for them. See you in Paderborn Gerd
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.