Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 07:31:49 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: >>I think it is a good idea to use the SEE for checking moves, too. Only search >>checks which do not lose material. > >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. I don't see how not searching losing checks in the qsearch is admitting defeat any more than not searching losing captures is. In both cases, you will make mistakes, but also save lots of time. >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. Sure. I wish I could get good results with a minimalistic qsearch like yours. Unfortunately it never worked very well so far. But perhaps Omid is right that a minimalistic qsearch works better with nullmove R=2 than with R=3 (which I use). I will run some experiments with R=2 and no checks in qsearch when I find the time. Tord
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.