Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: To check or not to check, this is the quiescence question

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 07:49:55 10/14/03

Go up one level in this thread


On October 14, 2003 at 10:07:46, Daniel Clausen wrote:

>On October 13, 2003 at 23:00:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Last but least, extending in check is a hell of a lot cheaper too.
>>
>>Instead of looking whether a move gives a check you now only have to look a
>>single time whether you are IN check.
>
>Except that "looking whether a move gives a check" has to be done for all the
>moves you do at ply N, whereas "look a single time whether you are IN check" is
>done multiple times at ply N+1.
>
>Sargon


Hopeless to argue with him about this.  The tree has a static shape.  Where
you do something is irrelevant, if all you do is push it along an arc from
one connected node to another.  It gets done no matter what...  the same
number of times, etc.






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.