Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Tord Romstad

Date: 09:25:30 08/19/03

Go up one level in this thread

On August 19, 2003 at 09:05:09, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>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.

IIRC, Ed calculates them at every node, and Rebel is very fast, so clearly
it is possible to do this efficiently.  I wish I knew how he does it.  :-)

Phalanx is open-sourced and computes similar tables at all nodes, but is
not as fast as Rebel.



This page took 0.01 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.