Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 03:45:48 03/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2004 at 06:25:09, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >On March 10, 2004 at 22:36:15, Johan de Koning wrote: > >>On March 10, 2004 at 22:32:54, Johan de Koning wrote: >> >>>On March 10, 2004 at 22:29:20, Johan de Koning wrote: >>> >>>>On March 10, 2004 at 22:28:10, Johan de Koning wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 10, 2004 at 22:25:10, Johan de Koning wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 10, 2004 at 22:22:51, Johan de Koning wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>PS: notice the replies: 1 ply full-width with limited QS. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>>Allow me to disagree here. >>>>> >>>>>Whatever. >>>>>I'll prove I was right in the first place. >>>> >>>>Perhaps, but I still don't buy it. >>> >>>And I still was right to start with. >> >>Discusion terminated because of 2 x repetition. > >Not any longer - a poor all-node - maybe your hash-key is wrong. >And of course you should have a look to your move ordering. >Here is another leave node with eval >= beta, so please no reply. Unfortunately eval >= beta doesn't result in a cutoff here, since the side to move is in check! Good luck resolving check sequences in quiescence :)
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.