Author: Georg v. Zimmermann
Date: 05:27:26 03/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
> >I don't see any reason to extend a move I fail high on, unless there is a threat >further down. What you describe happens ALL the time. >In that case I would prefer a heuristic that extends on threats >directly. For that heuristic to work, you will have to see that its a threat. Often you will have looked deep enough for the singular extensions to kick in, but without seeing the threat. >Extending singular moves like PxQ where there is no threat involved is a waste >of time as far as I can tell. In the case of 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 d6 3. Qxe5 //dxe5// : agreed. But how about 1. e4 e5 2. Qf3 Qf6 3.Qxf6 //gxf6// ? To distinguish between those 2 cases all tactically strong engines I know of use extensions depending on bounds (alpha/beta). Georg
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.