Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 15:42:03 08/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2004 at 17:06:30, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >I still think it is due to my use of material-only/pc-sq and >an attack-finding routine, in support of see, that is as slow >as doing a makemv(). Stuart: I don't think so. Put your draw detection and incheck verification in the quies() I posted elsewhere and try that. Even with a simple eval(), not searching captures that don't have a snowball's chance has got to help you. If you think your see() is too slow try a poor man's see: if(captured_piece_is_defended) value = victim_value - attackor_value; else value = victim_value; You can use something like your incheck() routine for captured_piece_is_defended. I used this till I had my see() working and it did just about as well. It's fast but obviously not as accurate as a full see(). But even a full see() is just a guess - its not that often that a sequence of exchanges plays out on a single square. Dan H.
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.