Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:26:34 01/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2004 at 03:20:24, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 26, 2004 at 01:10:12, Mathieu Pagé wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>I always thought that it was not necessary to check for check after each moves. >>My supposition was that if the search visit a node were the side that has just >>move is still in check the opposite side will take the king and this will lead >>to a so bad position (king captured) that the search (minimax, AB things) would >>just reject that move. > >No > >it is possible that after capturing the king the second side can also capture >the king. > >Your assumptions are clearly wrong. >You also need to know if the king is in check if you want to do check extensions >and not return evaluation in check positions because they are not quiet >positions. > >Uri Your engine may play an illegal move here because Kxe5 wins a pawn even if your evaluation tells you that king is equal 1000 pawns. [D]5r2/8/4k3/4p3/4K3/8/8/4R3 w - - 0 1 If you decide to search capturing kings(I do not do it and I search only legal moves) you must have some rule to tell you to stop searching immediately after the king was captured in the last ply to avoid the problem of trading kings. 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.