Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 07:22:29 09/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2004 at 09:19:00, Andrew Platt wrote: >On September 03, 2004 at 08:46:08, Uri Blass wrote: > >>>It would be too expensive for me to really deal with checks in qsearch because I >>>don't want to have to generate the legal capture modes. All I do is bomb out of >>>it if I see the King being captured. However, it might not be too expensive to >>>generate the legal moves at the first ply of qsearch if we're in check to catch >>>these conditions. I might try that and see if it causes testsuites to slow down >>>much. >>> >>>Andy. >> >>You do not need to do it. >>If you extend every check by 1 ply in correct way there is 0 chance to get >>position when the king is in check in the first ply of the qsearch. > >You're right. Late nights analyzing plies of trace data do strange things to the >mind! The real situation I was seeing was a standard horizon effect exacerbated >by null move. With null move I don't see Rh8# and extend for a mate threat if I >don't have enough depth to call alpha-beta from the null move since the qsearch >doesn't generate non-capturing checking moves. > I added this features, generating non-capturing checking moves, at the first quiescence ply -- it failed to solve 141. So far, only recapture (two back-to-back captures on the same square, any pieces) solves it in under 3 minutes on this box.
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.