Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 13:11:46 03/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hi, Vasik and Mridul! On March 18, 2004 at 15:31:29, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >On March 18, 2004 at 04:43:20, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >> >>Yeah, true, this is a big area. Actually secretly I hope to get rid of q-search >>completely and replace it with a static exchange evaluator. I don't trust a >>cheap q-search, and don't want an expensive one. I use a hybrid approach. Among many other things, my evaluation function tries to measure the tactical complexity of the position, by considering the number and values of hanging, pinned or overloaded pieces, and looking for possible forks. If the position is sufficiently simple, I replace the q-search with a SEE. If it is more complicated, I do a search. Depending on the position, I search only captures and promotions, or also promising checks, forks, and moves which bring attacked pieces to safe squares. There are still lots of things to improve in my qsearch, but with enough work I am convinced that it is possible to write a qsearch which is more reliable than a simplistic capture search, while at the same time searching fewer nodes. >>Perhaps you means "singular extensions" (yes I know it was 2:00 am :-)). > > > >Actually I meant selective extensions. (Description of idea snipped). If I understand your idea correctly, I do something similar, but less extreme. I extend all checks, but some checks are extended more than others. Tord
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.