Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:49:17 08/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2004 at 15:36:13, David Dahlem wrote: >On August 30, 2004 at 15:30:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 30, 2004 at 13:56:57, David Dahlem wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>I was saying it in the context of SEE. There I do _always_ use the smallest >>piece next... > >Ok, but "Just like you would do" has nothing to do with SEE, that's what drew my >attention... > >Dave OK. I see where the confusion came from and it was a poor choice of words from me... > >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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.