Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 06:06:52 08/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2003 at 13:20:04, Ed Schröder wrote: >On August 30, 2003 at 08:12:16, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 30, 2003 at 06:54:19, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>I do not find something illogical in the original explanation >> >>I think that there are good rules not to extend checks but the rule that was >>used was not good enough and you may need more conditions not to extend in order >>not to do the mistake of not extending important moves. > >Well, as soon as you have found some rules please post. Checker is a lone attacker, undefended but attacked by non-pinned piece..? Happens all the time I think, just print incheck() positions from the tree. -S. >Ed > > > >>I also think that the question if a rule is good is dependent on the other rules >>and it is more logical not to extend for a program that does not use a lot of >>pruning. >> >>Uri
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.