Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:36:56 01/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2004 at 02:53:37, José Carlos wrote: >On January 24, 2004 at 17:12:45, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On January 24, 2004 at 15:57:50, Mike Siler wrote: >> >>>In an average middlegame position, around 80-85% of the nodes my program >>>searches are quiesce nodes. I have a static exchange evaluator and I only search >>>captures with SEE value > 0. It seems like other engines are always under 25% >>>qnodes. What else should I be doing to reduce these numbers? >> >>Use the SEE more aggressively. When the static eval is below beta, but >>static_eval+(value of capturing biggest hanging enemy piece) > beta+margin, >>return beta. This is too risky unless your SEE is very sophisticated. > > This doesn't make sense unless you do a real qsearch in your SEE, which is >ridiculous of course. I do not do it but it is not ridicilous and I may try to implement it because it is possible to do faster qsearch in the SEE that only verify that the opponent cannot have big profit from his reply(if you capture the queen and you expect a score of 7 pawns above beta then it may be enough to verify that the opponent cannot reply by capturing the queen or the king(in case that you consider making also illegal moves) and it is faster than finding that he has no possible capture). 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.