Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 05:21:33 07/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2003 at 08:16:43, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 25, 2003 at 03:21:33, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On July 25, 2003 at 02:41:22, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>Now, a qsearch ending in checkmate may or may not really be a checkmate. After >>>all, we only tried certain moves and it could very well be that the checkmate >>>could be avoided. >>> >>>So, the burning question is... >>>What should we do when the qsearch ends in a mate? >>>There are lots of alternatives, from the primitive "return a mate" to "send a >>>danger signal up the tree and let the regular search deal with it" to >>>"extending" to... >>> >>>What is your favorite choice and why? >> >>You can second guess any score coming from qsearch. Not just mate. There is >>little practical difference between losing a significant amount of material and >>getting mated. I say be primitive. The qsearch already consumes too many nodes >>as it is. > >I do not think that being primitive is better and checks in the qsearch helped a >lot of programs to improve their playing strength. > >Uri Checks in the qsearch is fine. The issue is whether or not to trust a checkmate score from the qsearch.
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.