Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:26:20 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2003 at 10:06:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 14, 2003 at 08:42:05, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On October 14, 2003 at 07:17:27, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>Actually it seems that it is safe to ignore all capturing checks altogether in >>>gen_checks(). If the capture is non-losing, it will already be generated, and if >>>it is a losing capture, the odds that it turns out to be a good move aren't that >>>high (assuming that SEE hasn't mistakenly deemed the move as losing capture, >>>while in fact it is a winning capture since one of the defenders is pinned...) >> >>I think it is a good idea to use the SEE for checking moves, too. Only search >>checks which do not lose material. >> >>Tord > > >Then you admit defeat before you start. See the simple draw by stalemate >idea where you have a king and rook, and your king can't move. You just >make unsafe check after unsafe check because the rook can't be taken. > >Safe checks are probably better than no checks, assuming you believe you >have to do checks in the q-search. But, as I have said so many times, if >your q-search is going to have so many holes, find a way to avoid putting >such a heavy responsibility on the q-search in the first place. why do you assume that it is heavy responsibility? The fact that you do not get everything from checks in the qsearch does not mean that it is not productive. The test is simple If the program plays better then it is a good idea. Uri
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.