Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:03:45 03/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 09, 2003 at 15:43:37, Russell Reagan wrote: >I think that most people subscribe to the school of thought that says that >quiescent search is not perfect, so do it fast and "good enough" for most >situations. If you could have a perfect quiescent search, what price would you >be willing to pay? One ply of full width search? Two ply? Time to depth takes >twice as long? I am interested what programmers with more experience than myself >think about this. If I have perfect quiescent search that give me exact evaluation of every position(win,draw or loss) then even paying 10 plies may do you unbeatable. I do not know what you mean by perfect qsearch. I think that the idea of Bas Hamastra to do checks in the first plies of the qsearch is productive. Bob tried a similiar idea that did not work but I understood that he only tried checks in all plies of the qsearch. I found that checks in the first plies of the qsearch did movei slightly better in test suites with no significant demage in games and my function to detect checks in the qsearch is a slow function that I need to improve. I think that other ideas may be also productive and detecting cases when the side to move is in trouble is important(checks are good candidates but it is possible to catch more cases and movei catch more cases but not enough). 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.