Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

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
>exist.

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



>
>>
>>Tord

• Re: Static Exchange Evaluation (SEE) for pruning in quiescence (?) Uri Blass 05:05:39 08/19/03
  • Re: Static Exchange Evaluation (SEE) for pruning in quiescence (?) Uri Blass 05:07:07 08/19/03
    • Re: Static Exchange Evaluation (SEE) for pruning in quiescence (?) Bo Persson 04:36:37 08/20/03
      • Re: Static Exchange Evaluation (SEE) for pruning in quiescence (?) Robert Hyatt 15:19:05 08/20/03

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.