Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Static Exchange Evaluation (SEE) for pruning in quiescence (?)

Author: Bo Persson

Date: 04:43:08 08/19/03

Go up one level in this thread

On August 19, 2003 at 06:19:59, Joost Buijs wrote:

>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

But it is always only an approximation, you just want it to be good enough to
avoid flat out blunders.

In a position like this

[D]8/1p6/r1r5/8/8/8/8/R1R5 w - - 0 1

SEE will believe that the black rooks are both defended, but they are not. This
is not a "pin", but an "overload" which is still missed. You just can't get it
all (cheap).

Bo Persson


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.