Author: Tony Werten
Date: 04:29:59 06/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2003 at 07:19:20, Fermin Serrano wrote: >I have hadache in how to avoid so many nodes spended in quiescent search. > >I have a new idea that came to my mind “on the fly”, and before test something I >want to know other opinions and if this could be saccessful. I have not a clear >concept yet, but I want to experiment samething. In qsearch, SEE is expensive, >but save time in search. I was thinking that when you use other method like >MVA/LVD is faster but lot of nodes are evaluated. What about if when you enter a >position in qsearch with this method and in ply x+3 where x>3 of quiescent >before contining, test if last 3 captures were in the same square, and if not, >then you could safe return a negative score (maybe -INFINITE) because there is a If the captures have to be on the same square, you might just as well return the SEE value. That will save you even more nodes. It might work for some engines. The problem might be that most of the time the quiescence search is less than 3 or 4 ply, but that can depend on the engine. Returning SEE scores at the root (of qs) gives to much horizon problems, delaying that a couple of ply could work. Specially for engines that only search capture moves ( so no checks etc ) Tony >big probability that move secuence would finished in a waste of time. >Maybe playing with this number (3, 4 or 5 plays after enter qsearch) could bring >good results. >What I have in mind is playing with last square where capture was, because most >time captures are solved there, of course not always, but maybe the time wasted >in go around all other moves is better used in depth+1. > >What are you opinions?
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.