Author: David Dahlem
Date: 10:56:57 08/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2004 at 13:50:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 30, 2004 at 11:10:24, David Dahlem wrote: > >>On August 30, 2004 at 11:00:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 30, 2004 at 10:42:34, Rick Bischoff wrote: >>> >>>>Hello all, >>>> >>>>I currently use the MVV/LVA technique in my queiscent search and am not really >>>>happy with the bloat (it's running on my G4 now and getting some good NPS, but >>>>the depth isn't all that great due to aforementioned bloat) so I was wondering >>>>if anyone would be kind of enough to explain the principles behind SEE to me? >>>> >>>>i.e., how do you determine the correct capture order? What do you do with bad >>>>captures? Do you just give them a really low score or do you just exlude them >>>>completely from the search move list? >>> >>> >>>See is a series of captures on a _single_ square. Just like you would do, your >>>program should always use the smallest possible piece next, when making a >>>capture. >> >>"always"? Are there not some situations where capturing with a larger (checking) >>piece would force a recapture, while a smaller piece would not, which would be >>advantageous? >> >>Dave > >Not in SEE. There is no concept of "checks" in any SEE implementation I have >done or seen. > >SEE (static exchange evaluator) really is "dumb" in that regard. :) My point, the way i read your statement, "Just like you would do, your program should always use the smallest possible piece next, when making a capture.", is that you seem to be saying this is an "always" unchangeable chess rule, whether for humans or engines. :-) Dave > >> >>You minumax the result to see if the capture on that square wins, >>>breaks even, or loses material.
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.