Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:43:41 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 had a _perfect_ q-search, one ply of normal search would be enough. :)
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.