Author: scott farrell
Date: 07:18:56 08/28/03
When you read most literature it says "to find quiet positions" so the eval function is more accurate, and the quiescent in the name suggests the same. But I think this is wrong, and most people use it for the later. Here are things I and other have put in/out/in/out of their qSearches: - capture by LVA and SEE - checks - passed pawns And as we but more into the qSearch, in an effort to stop spending too much nodes on it, we try: - pruning - stand pat - ala Crafty - etc The whole idea of getting to the next ply is to reveals horizon errors and such in the current ply. I have a few positions where a black pawn cant be stopped because of wrong colour bishop, and a white pawn similarly close and supported and attacked by bothKings and will never score a try. For the main search it just keeps horizoning the fact that one pawn is unstoppable. (maybe I need to knowledge for this instead of search). As soon as I put passed pawn in qSearch, it sees this in about 6 plies, whereas before it needs something like 15 plies (to exhaust its best efforts at horizoning it). Checks in the qsearch fall into the same pile, whereas captures are different. Extensions dont seem to help the horizoning problem, only the qSearch. So it is the qSearch's job to find quiet or to stop some classes of horizon problems? A few threads down, you'll see Robert's note about QxP on the last node, and the next iteration obviously sees the folly with PxQ. Good captures in the asearch grab this easily, and I think was the original intent of the qsearch as the oustanding PXQ is HOT and not quiet. opinions? Scott
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.