Author: Joost Buijs
Date: 03:19:59 08/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2003 at 04:12:45, Tord Romstad wrote: >On August 19, 2003 at 02:48:36, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>It seems that some programs use Static Exchange Evaluation in order to prune >>losing captures in quiescence search. > >Not just some. Almost all strong programs do this, I think. > >>In the following position, an SEE will deem the move 1.Rxd7 a losing capture, and it might >>get pruned in quiescence. However, in fact this is a winning capture since Qf6 is attacked >>after 1.Rxd7. How do such programs solve these kind of problems? > >They don't (or at least most don't). On the other hand, the significant extra >speed gained >by not searching all captures help them find a lot of other tactics which they >otherwise >wouldn't have found. > >Try it yourself. I am almost certain that you will find that excluding losing >captures >from the qsearch is a big win. To me it looks wrong to skip losing captures from the quiescence search if the losing captures are determined by a SEE that is wrong in some cases, e.g. pinned pieces. If you use the SEE for move ordering purposes only this problem doesn't exist. > >Tord
This page took 0.01 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.