Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 06:05:09 08/19/03

Go up one level in this thread

On August 19, 2003 at 07:20:27, Steve Maughan wrote:

>>I was wondering, wouldn't it be better to write an SEE which neglects backed-
>>up attacks, and not use it for pruning? This way it yields a good move
>>ordering at no cost (e.g., using Ed's attack tables), and isn't liable to
>>risks of pruning.
>If you read Ed's page you'll see that Ed's method accounts for x-ray threats and
>is probably (almost certainly) more costly than SEE.  The reason Ed makes it
>work is that he's using the information for other reasons as well.

Well, I use them for king safety too. The problem is that it is too costly to
calculate the attack board at each node, and I still haven't found a good way to
update them dynamically.


This page took 0.02 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.