Author: Mathieu Pagé
Date: 11:55:14 01/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2004 at 03:26:34, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Yes, you're right. It's that kind of behavior that make me doubt. >[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. Thank for your comments, I will check for check at every nodes as that seems to be the thing to do. Mathieu >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.