Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 14:56:55 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. I think, that's an interesting field to experiment with. I have tested a lot of ideas in quiescence search: pushes of passed pawns (if some pre-conditions fulfilled), checking moves (if king to be checked is condidered to stand risky), hanging pieces attempting to escape (only very close to the boundary of full search). OTOH, you're right; i think that this kind of q-search is expensive. Only extensive testing can tell whether it's worthwhile. I do not know yet. Uli
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.