Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:38:57 11/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2004 at 08:58:35, Richard Pijl wrote: >>> >>>Checkmate will always lead to a stand-pat choice in qsearch. Any move will get >>>your king taken, so better do nothing and return eval instead. :-) >>>Easily solved with check-evasions in qsearch, but of course that costs some >>>nodes. >>>Richard. >> >>No need to do check evasions in qsearch to solve the problem. >>My first movei had no checks and check evasion in qsearch but it always knew >>that checkmate is checkmate based only on the evaluation function. > >I don't call evaluation when I'm in check, but instead try to find a legal move. >My evaluation is expensive, so I don't want to call it when it is not necessary. For me it is necessary to call it even when the node is not leaf node because I use the result (for example for pruning decisions). >Additionally, I mentioned an _easy_ way of solving it. Yes but as you mentioned there is a price of searching more nodes and with detecting mate in the evaluation you do not need to do it because you can evaluate positions when the king is in check. I admit that searching all nodes in check may help not only to detect mates but I think that it may be better not to search all nodes when you are in check in every case and you may have conditions that tell you if to search all nodes in check or not to do it. Uri
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.