Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:45:20 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 14:39:15, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >On October 12, 2003 at 06:32:25, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>Recently I conducted some extensive experiments with two versions of Falcon, one >>with checks in quiescence and one without. Falcon already has lots of >>extensions, but adding checks in quiescence resulted in a significant boost for >>tactical strength. >> >>I tested the following options: >> >>a) checks everywhere in quiescence >>b) checks only in the first ply of quiescence >>c) no checks in quiescence >> > >Some triggers in the current path (checks and other foreced moves), some >heuristics and you may decide whether using a,b or c at runtime. > >Gerd That's the way to control tree size. IE I don't have the specifics in front of me, but for Cray Blitz, I didn't do any q-search checks/check-evasions unless there were at least N checks in the basic part of the search. N varied based on the number of plies in the basic part of the search including all extensions. IE there's not a lot of point in fooling with checks in the q-search if there were no checks/tactical-moves in the base search. You are most likely just exploding the tree. But if there are a lot of checks in the base search, then looking at multiple (always consecutive of course) checks in the q-search to follow-through on the tactical theme makes pretty good sense. > ><snip>
This page took 0 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.