Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 19:31:16 08/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2004 at 22:08:13, Michael Henderson wrote: >On August 29, 2004 at 21:38:12, Tor Lattimore wrote: > >>I recently tried putting Checks in my QSearch, this brought me to the question, >>should I stand-pat if i'm in check, but up lots of material? It does better in >>some positions if I don't allow it to, but it blows up the search as well. Also, >>is it better only to allow checks only at root of qsearch? >>Cheers >>Tor > >examining checking moves in the qsearch will slow you down a lot. I find it's >best to do check/singular response extensions in the main search. The main >search is smarter than the qsearch so you should probably spend your search time >in that. My program runs at about 400k nps on a test suite without checks in quiescence and about 3/4 of a ply deeper in the main search and about 8 ply less deeply in the quiescence search. Predictably, it does worse (perhaps 5%) on standard test suites without checks in the quiescence. Personally, I think this is a good feature to leave enabled. The name of the game is, after all, checkmate and I'd hate to be misevaluating when the fireworks start. I call it "peace of mind". Stuart
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.