Author: scott farrell
Date: 05:47:44 01/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2004 at 06:04:20, Sune Fischer wrote: >On January 09, 2004 at 05:36:57, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>You can make the sequence shorter if you only want to know if it's a winner or >>loser, but not if you want to know how much it wins or loses (AFAICT). > >On second thought, I guess it is possible to cut the whole thing short in some >cases. >Say there are two winning swapoffs in a row, e.g. PxQ QxP NxQ then we can stop, >PxQ wins a queen. yeh, I have been thinking about it more. I think I am correct with those lowest and highest possible scores. I think it could be a bound to the whole SEE thing, once either bound is passed, you can guarantee one side is going to stand-pat at the point or before, and you can return the bound instead and stop any further captures. Which is what I think you said Sune, but in more words. It might not make much difference in speed though. I did like your position on order of captures, very interesting - thanks for that position. Scott > >-S.
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.