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 >>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 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. Uri
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.