Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 03:54:19 08/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2003 at 04:17:28, scott farrell wrote: >>1) Simple case : >>[d] r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/4p3/3PP3/P4N2/1PP2PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4 >> >>Trivial to see that Bb4+ is to be not extended. >When i first saw your idea I was very excited. I tried that exact case, a check >the does not capture, and can be captured by a pawn (I didnt look if the pawn is >pinned against the king or other piece), and chompster's performance on WAC >dropped significantly. >I think chompster has so much futility pruning, and search reductions code, that >if we extended something stupid, it gets pruned fairly quickly or reduced (the >opposite of extension). There is a more plausible explanation, that is, there are probably no good rules not to extend checks, just extend them. My best, Ed
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.