Author: Pat King
Date: 05:24:43 09/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 1998 at 21:42:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 16, 1998 at 17:16:20, John Coffey wrote: > >>On September 15, 1998 at 21:11:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: [snip] >correct... my "basic search" is an attempt to search active positions to the >point they are almost "quiet" or totally "quiet" by doing the various extensions >I do. Then I tack on a capture-only search to clean up the last bit of >uncertainty when possible... so that the static evaluator doesn't have to >understand hung pieces, forked pieces, whether the king is in check or not, >and so forth... I do the same thing, but I want to be sure I understand something... For the static evaluator to be blissfully unaware of checks, I have a check extension in my qsearch as well as my search. Further, I allow the checked side to evaluate all moves, not just captures. And as a result, I sometimes get the runaway evaluation that John described at the start of this thread. Isn't this approach neccessary to simplify the evaluator as you have described, and if so, then isn't an absolute upper limit to the search depth required? Pat
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.