Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 04:18:45 07/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2002 at 07:07:10, Richard Pijl wrote: >On July 01, 2002 at 06:50:51, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On July 01, 2002 at 06:34:31, Richard Pijl wrote: >> >>>>I presume the reason for this is the slow InCheck implementation, so the idea is >>>>to call the heavy functions as little as possible. >>> >>>And search less nodes as you do not have to search the check evasions. I think >>>that is the real winner. >> >>Oh well I don't do that in qsearch. It just means that I might evaluate a >>position where the king is in check, but that's still better than to evaluate a >>position where the king has been captured, IMHO. :) >> > >In that case you could just assign a very high material value to a king, so you >can determine a captured king by the material balance and skip evaluation with a >fail low ... Then you have no need for calling InCheck in qsearch at all But my InCheck is fast (at the expense of slow make-/unmakemove), so it's no problem for me. And I don't see how it solves Craftys problem, you still might evaluate positions where the king is in check. Example, your are in check (but don't know this since you don't detect it) and you have no captures so you evaluate and return alpha. It could also happen that both kings get captured in qsearch, since kings have the same value their scores will cancel and the evaluation score will look normal. -S. >Richard.
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.