Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:15:02 11/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2003 at 08:54:43, Anthony Cozzie 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 > >The correct way to do this is realize that at a futility node, _all_ non >checking moves will be pruned. So all you have do is generated captures and >checks. And in that case, you really are saving yourself quite a bit of work: >all those make-moves, all those lazy evals, etc. Of course, if you have big >kingsafety/pawn structure terms you'll miss a lot <shrug> > >anthony It is not enough because there are other moves that trigger extensions like pawn moves to the 7th rank. I also think that you are not going to miss a lot if you evaluate every node unless you have big changes in the positional evaluation in one ply. The point is that you can assume that the positional evaluation is a good approximation of the positional evaluation of the next node. 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.