Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 05:05:39 08/19/03

Go up one level in this thread

On August 19, 2003 at 07:43:08, Bo Persson wrote:

>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

They are defended.

Rxa6 Rxa6

if you want a better example then it is better to put a pawn at b6 and not only
at b7.


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.