Author: James Robertson
Date: 14:09:45 10/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 26, 1998 at 13:59:40, vincent dichiacchio wrote: > >On October 26, 1998 at 13:51:45, James Robertson wrote: > >>On October 26, 1998 at 13:45:52, vincent dichiacchio wrote: >> >>> >>>say a move at the root (after several plies are searched) scores +.5 before >>>quiescence, but is +.7 after quiescence. which score is assigned to the move? >>>thanks, >>>vince >> >>We assign the +.7 because it is assumed that the quiescence score is more >>trustworthy. Otherwise, why even do it at all? >> >>James > >Good point, but I wasnt sure if it was just used defensively to avoid a >blunder. > For example, if q-search shows I could lose a piece, the risk is that I >basically lose the game. If it shows I could be up a piece, not making that >move shouldnt cost me the game. >Vince That does not work well because a lot of positions in which you call the q-search may have dramatically different positional scores after a series of forced trades. Say we reach this position at our set depth for this iteration and it is Black's move: r - - - r - k p - - - p p p - - - b n - - - - - - - - - - N - - - - - P - - - - - B - - - - P P P R - - - R K - The static evaluator will probably assign a score of about 0, but the q-search indicates that after Bxh3 Pxh3, white is much worse positionally; although the sequence doesn't lose material, the positional score has changed dramatically. James Jameds
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.