Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:57:14 07/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 1999 at 11:16:39, Bas Hamstra wrote: >Bob do you take "batteries" into account? IE if some sliders are lined up does >swap always give the correct value? And checks? Do you allow a "swapmove" when >the moving color leaves itsself into check? I consider batteries, but not checks. I think it is a non-issue because the capture search is _full_ of errors anyway. In many positions, the best move is not a capture, but a quiet move that pins something instead. So a capture- only search has inherent error no matter what... > >Of course chepest is to do none of that, but I have no idea how that hurts. > >By the way I switched from incremental to normal move generation, basically to >get better sorting, but so far the incremental version was a lot faster... >Only doing very basic full window alpha-beta and material, no null, no >extensions, it spends over 40% generating captures. > >Regards, >Bas Hamstra. > > > > > > > > > > > >On July 09, 1999 at 10:54:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 09, 1999 at 10:07:11, Bas Hamstra wrote: >> >>>I see that some chessprograms throw losing captures (determined by the >>>swapvalue) out of the qsearch. However is that safe? Ordering by swapvalue ok, >>>but when you throw SwapVal<0 out you can oversee serious tactics, or not? >>> >>>Thanks in advance, >>> >>>Bas Hamstra. >> >>You miss some things. But you go over 2x faster, so you get another ply >>deeper. And you find some things you would miss. Which is better? I >>throw out losers. Have done this basically forever, all the way back thru >>Cray Blitz.
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.