Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 02:40:53 04/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2004 at 04:34:45, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On April 02, 2004 at 02:11:48, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On April 02, 2004 at 00:41:48, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>The problem with substituting a qsearch with something like this is that >>you only consider the purely material consequences of captures and exchanges. >>It is not at all unusual that an exchange dramatically changes some of the >>positional components of the evaluation function. Such changes are hard >>to estimate without actually making the captures and evaluating the resulting >>positions. >> >>In the past, some engines tried to save processor time by not calling the >>full evaluation function in the qsearch. Instead, they just counted the >>change in material and added this to the eval at the horizon depth. Most >>authors have abandoned this approach today, because the loss in positional >>understanding was too big. Substituting the whole qsearch with a very >>sophisticated SEE would have similar bad consequences, I think. >> >>Tord > >Tord, > >I thought you do this yourself (ie SEE rather than qsearch) when the position at >the start of qsearch meets certain criteria. (ie is quiet enough) I do in some cases, but only when a fail high or fail low is almost certain. My evaluation function does not only return a score, but also locates hanging pieces for both sides. If the static eval is not high enough to cause an immediate fail high, but the opponent has a hanging piece of sufficiently high value that the capture of it is likely to bring the score *really far* above beta, and the side to move has no hanging pieces, I return a fail high score. Similarly, if the static eval + biggest hanging piece for the opponent is very far below beta, I sometimes return a fail low score without any search. In both cases, I use huge safety margins. I am not even close to eliminating the qsearch completely. 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.