Author: Richard Pijl
Date: 04:50:12 07/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2002 at 07:18:45, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. Yes, but if you're not doing check evasions in qsearch, it doesn't matter, does it? >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. If you're evaluating on every move in qsearch that cannot happen as you will return failing low on the first king captured. >-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.