Author: Matthias Gemuh
Date: 15:27:25 04/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2003 at 17:59:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 30, 2003 at 17:50:55, Matthias Gemuh wrote: > >> >>Hi Experts, >>I have a really basic idea of what QSearch is supposed to be. >>My QSearch sucks heavily. Can some magical extensions really compensate ? >>Even at the cost of search depth ? >>Thanks for the brilliant answers, >>Matthias. > > >Think of a search as having three components: > >1. A normal search that attempts to following all interesting lines to some >sort of stable point. > >2. A q-search that is supposed to take the "stable point" and resolve any >remaining tactical issues dealing with pieces that are hung, overloaded, >or whatever. > >3. A static evaluation that takes the positions produced by 1 + 2 above, >and computes a static evaluation. It depends on the fact that all the tactical >issues have been resolved by the time 1 and 2 have completed, so that it "knows" >that the only considerations left are positional ones. > >1 and 2 are complementary. The more you do in 1, the less you have to do in >2, for example. But for step 3, you +must+ give it "quiet positions" or it will >produce bogus evaluations due to overlooked tactical opportunities. Your answers adresses every important issue. My middlegame evaluation is best on this planet. My headaches are therefore 1)extentions and 2)qsearch _independently_. Tanx a lot, Matthias.
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.