Author: Pat King
Date: 14:20:56 02/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 1999 at 22:59:30, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On February 20, 1999 at 22:23:08, Pat King wrote: > >>I haven't implemented this yet, but I was considering doing it as a special case >>of iterative deepening. I detect checks by checking for king captures and >>immediately returning a losing score. So, you just count the moves for which a >>non-losing score is returned, and if 1, search that move again with increased >>depth. > >I don't know what this is achieving. > >What you want to do is extend in cases where you have one legal response. You >can speculatively do this in all cases, or you can do it after a fail-high on >the non-extended search. > >What you in particular want to catch is nodes where your king is in trouble but >seems to be surviving. Those are very dangerous nodes. > >bruce That is certainly what I'm attempting to do, within the context of my program's architecture -- it's just that with my program, the way you find out you have only one move is that all the rest get the king captured. Now is this an improvement over having a legal move generator in the first place? I don't know, that's why I'm going to do it :) Pat
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.