Author: James Swafford
Date: 09:38:41 04/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 1999 at 10:18:25, blass uri wrote: > >On April 29, 1999 at 20:14:55, James Swafford wrote: > >>On April 27, 1999 at 16:08:59, Peter Kappler wrote: >> >>>On April 27, 1999 at 15:35:06, Will Singleton wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Amateur doesn't find the move after 2 minutes and 9 ply, liking Be7 with +3. I >>>>better get busy and try out the single-reply extension. Problem is, I use >>>>psuedo-legal moves, so I'm not sure how to tell when I only have one reply! >>>> >>>>Will >>> >>> >>>I have the same problem with Grok, and it's making it difficult for me to >>>implement this extension efficiently. >>> >>>--Peter >> >>You don't have to generate legal moves for every position >>to implement this, just nodes in which you are in check. > > >You need to generate legal moves for every position to implement single-reply >extension > >You do not need tp do it for every position if you do only single reply to check >extension. > >Uri You're right, if you want to argue semantics. I've never heard of anybody extending on a single-reply that isn't a check, but I suppose it could be done. -- James
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.