Author: Daniel Shawul
Date: 04:27:23 11/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2003 at 06:01:09, Uri Blass wrote:
>On November 10, 2003 at 05:58:35, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On November 10, 2003 at 05:24:08, Daniel Shawul wrote:
>>
>>>If I am following you correctly,you do the futility cut off before making the
>>>move.How do you intend to figure out whether it is a cheking move or not?
>>>Because I think it is very hard to determine revealed checks(indirect checks
>>>by pieces other than the moving piece).Doing the futility before making the move
>>>may cost you some time.So what I think is easy is to make the move and see if it
>>>is a checking move.And if you apply the futility after you make the move,there
>>>is no saving in make/unmake.So what I am saying is FP at frontier is
>>>gonna cost you more than its advantage so it's better to rely on the stand pat
>>>cutoff.
>>>
>>>Daniel
>>
>>I have some pruning based on evaluation.
>>part of it is done before making move and part of it is done after making move.
>
>I can add that my pruning is not done only when the remaining depth is 1
we are talking about pruning when depth==1
>and in a lot of cases finding that there is no indirect check is easy only based on the fact that the from square is not in queen direction to the enemy king.
>
so are you saying
1.checking an attack by the moving piece
2.checking a revealed attack by another piece
is better?
It is as difficult as generating legal moves at a given node,if not harder.
That's the reason why most programs generate pseudo legal moves first and then
check for legality.
>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.