Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 18:36:00 03/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 09, 2003 at 18:13:31, Uri Blass wrote: >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 don't see your point. Why should a certain percentage of extra-nodes be "cheaper" for a slower searcher than for a faster searcher ? > >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. I do it different. So, we can't compare easily. In case the evaluation has signaled that either king is "in danger", then I generate checking moves (to that king) also deep in quies-search. OTOH, in a quiet position, I don't do them at all. These checks - together with escape of hanging pieces - slows down considerably. I haven't really measured for a long time, but I guess this could account for almost one iteration less in given time. Uli > >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.