Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:55:01 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2003 at 11:01:09, Uri Blass wrote: >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 My guess is that the "right implementation of checks in the q-search" is going to be _extremely_ difficult to find. Meanwhile, time spent elsewhere will show bigger gains.
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.