Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:01:09 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2003 at 10:55:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 14, 2003 at 10:31:49, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>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. > >That's the point. "admitting defeat" means "accepting additional errors". > >I wasn't talking about losing games, specifically. The q-search based only >on captures if _full_ of errors. It fails to understand any tactic except >those specifically depending on captures. IE no pins. No threats. No >double attacks. No skewers. No checks. > >If you add safe checks, that is a small part of the above list of things it >will overlook. A part small enough that it probably won't help much, and >it might hurt if it wastes too much time. > >Perhaps my "admitting defeat" was too vague a descriptive term?? > > >> >>>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 > >I use R=3 to R=2, and I really haven't seen anything bad. bad is something relative. My guess is that Crafty can be better with the right implementation of checks in the qsearch. 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.