Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:04:32 01/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2005 at 05:44:21, Tord Romstad wrote: >I have played around with various variants of singular extensions from time >to time, but never had much success, even in tactical test positions. The >problem seems to be that the general search depth is reduced too much because >of the many stupid variations which get extended. When I look at my log files, >it seems that most of the singular extensions made are for recaptures after >obviously losing captures, like the line 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Qxh7 Rxh7. >The move Rxh7 is singular, but making an extension in a line like this >does not seem like a good idea. Whatever type of definition you use, Rxh7 IS a singular extension. I would want to go even further that in general describe singular extensions as extending especially captures very deep. Even vague and IMHO wrong definitions that give say a 3 pawn bonus around the root score to do SE, such definitions fail for Rxh7 too. If you don't extend Rxh7 here, you pretty much cannot extend anything. Making a singular extension based upon: "previous moves white has done a few stupid moves with qxh7 as most stupid" Making such stuff is wishful thinking too. Qxh7 could very well lead to mate! So from my viewpoint Rxh7 should get extended. It's the white moves which suck ass. Qh5 is so so bad. >Do those of you who successfully use singular extensions employ some technique >to avoid triggering the extension in the type of situation described above? >Tord In short i do not see any way to not extend Rxh7, other than to cripple singular extensions to a point that they no longer are singular extensions.
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.