Author: Georg v. Zimmermann
Date: 07:19:24 03/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2003 at 08:35:00, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 06, 2003 at 08:27:26, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: > >> >>> >>>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// ? > >gxf6 is not singular because Nxf6 is also possible. You are correct. But I hope its still clear what I wanted to say. >This is also not a good example because recapture extension is possible Yes. They overlap quite often. > >Uri
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.