Author: Rick Bischoff
Date: 21:05:06 09/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
You already count your legal moves through the loop-- that is how you determine mates, right? Why not, instead of just having a bool variable for legalMoveFound, change it to an integer. Then, mark the move with a special "only legal move bit"-- on the next iteration (with iterative deepining) or maybe in the same loop. On September 10, 2004 at 21:35:58, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >I read, somewhere, and I forget who, about >if 1 legal move, extend 2 ply, >2 or more legal moves, then 1 ply. >Anyone have any stats on the effects >on play of the above instead of >always extend 1 legal move. Does it >blow up? > >How do people get around the cost >of determining that there is only >1 legal move? > >For me, that's an expensive operation >involving usually dozens of makemove/unmakemove's >with a test to see if the king is attacked, >at every single node, before doing the search >of the 1 move with the increased depth. > >Only rarely is it just 1 legal move to get >out of check. But the determination of that >is not rare. It has to be done for every >sweep of the moves at each node. > >Thanks, > >Stuart
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.