Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 06:25:04 05/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2002 at 09:15:40, Sune Fischer wrote: >On May 27, 2002 at 08:51:04, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: > >> >>>It seems better both with respect to speed and accuracy to deal with this >>>problem at the root, if possible. >> >>I think its impossible. Your safety-margin idea doesnt really work because the >>point of a qsearch termination is indeterminable (nice pun huh). > >hehe yeah, but you don't go 60 plies when there are more than just a few pieces >(at least I can't think of such a position), few pieces should give a very >shallow qsearch well within the 15 plies or 20 or whatever margin one chooses. > >-S. Oh, remembered what the problem was - the extensions! I also need to put a limit on the number of extended plies. So the margin should be: 1 ply per piece (for the qsearch) and added to that the maximum extension depth. Last one is a limit many programs has, not a bad idea either, for searching 60 plies there could be many checks (which is also why I saw one case of depth 71, no way qsearch could go 11 plies with just two pawns). If the number of estimated pieces is not sat too low, then this should be foolprof, right? -S.
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.