Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 07:51:15 10/14/03

Go up one level in this thread


On October 14, 2003 at 08:45:31, Tord Romstad wrote:

>On October 13, 2003 at 16:50:41, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On October 12, 2003 at 11:57:40, Tord Romstad wrote:
>>
>>>Another reason I cannot solve your position is that I only include checks in the
>>>qsearch in middle-game positions, and your position is classified as an endgame
>>>position.
>>
>>There is another problem.  In most cases, the check will be "unsafe".  IE
>>it hangs the rook.  Of course the rook can't be captured without forcing a
>>stalemate.  But the check itself looks unsound using SEE or whatever, which
>>makes it even harder to find unless you look at _all_ checks.  And that _will_
>>explode the tree to unbearable space.
>
>Yes, I forgot to add that.  This is one of the numerous restrictions I
>have on which checks to search:  I never search checks for which the SEE
>returns a negative score.
>
>Tord


As I said, doing only safe checks introduces yet another inaccuracy into an
already inaccurate q-search.  That's why I try to extend in the basic search
where things are way more accurate.




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.