Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 10:30:58 08/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2004 at 06:17:50, martin fierz wrote: >as a related question to mridul's post: i don't have a special check evasion >generator. i just have a single normal move generator and if it's a check, i >will have to execute all the normal moves, and undo them again after seeing that >it's still a check. > >does anyone have an estimate on how much a specialized check-evasion move >generator would speed up a program? >is it really worth it? > >cheers > martin Hi Martin, Like Tord mentioned , you can use this info for extensions decisions. But primary reason why I wanted to rewrite mine was to try out the long check idea mentioned by Ed. Preliminary results indicate that it is better than the combination of crazy bunch of ideas I had earlier , both speed and performance wise :) So I am moving to Ed's long check version for time being ... (there it helps immediately - after genEvasion , you know the value to extend the qsearch by). Mridul
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.