Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:41:48 04/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2004 at 00:37:22, Artem Pyatakov wrote:
>Dann,
>
>That was a very nice reply - I will incorporate the feedback.
>
>>If you keep a table of the counts of attack by piece type for each square, you
>>don't have to bother with quiescence. The question in that case is whether it
>>is better to do the work of updating the tables or to do the work of >quiescence.
>
>Is this really true? Can you explain how? Because I do have attack tables in my
>program and I don't understand how this can help me avoid qsearch. Thanks!
You need more than the attack tables. You need counts of attacks by piece type
for every square.
The strongest attack is a pawn attack. If you have 2 white pawn attacks and one
black pawn attack, the square is won by white no matter what other pieces attack
it (of course if you move one of the pawns to the square then the pawn attacks
decreases by one).
So do this for every square under attack:
(white pawn attacks) - (black pawn attacks) {if zero, you are concerned about}
(white piece attacks) - (black piece attacks) {knights and bishops}
(white rook attacks) - (black rook attacks)
(white queen attacks) - (black queen attacks)
(white king attacks) - (black king attacks)
And the same for pins (you will want to track the pinned pieces and xrays)
If you track it for not only the attacked pieces but also the attacked squares,
then you can know if an empty square is safe to step on for a given piece type.
This page took 0.01 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.