Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:13:31 03/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 09, 2003 at 17:56:55, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >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 I am surprised that for you it is expensive, Comet is not one of the fast searchers so I thought that for you it should be not expensive. I found it productive for test suites and I did not find a proof for big difference in games. I decided to keep it because I know that my function to generate checks in the first plies of the qsearch is not close to be optimal and I probably can get a significant improvement in speed by doing it faster in the future. 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.