Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:49:50 09/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2004 at 15:51:33, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On September 30, 2004 at 04:49:15, martin fierz wrote: > >>On September 30, 2004 at 00:52:04, Will Singleton wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>hi will, >> >>>If the previous move was a piece moving near the enemy king, I don't null move. >>>Also, don't null near the leafs. >> >>i'm wondering about your suggestion to not null near the leafs. i think i once >>tried that but it didn't work for me. i do checks on the first ply of qsearch >>though, which reduces problems with null-moves dropping straight into qsearch. >> >>could you give some more details of your approach? are you doing checks in QS or >>not? and how near is "near"? > >Doesn't that cause your qsearch to slow down by having to do a full move >gen? My full movegen is slower than my capture gen. i only do a "semi-full-gen". just like when you generate capture moves you only produce moves going to certain squares (those where there is an enemy piece), you only generate moves which check the king - you first generate the squares where pieces would check the king, and then generate moves to these squares, for every piece type. that certainly isn't the reason my program is slow :-) cheers martin
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.