Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:13:55 07/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 1999 at 20:45:20, David Eppstein wrote: >On July 19, 1999 at 18:25:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>On July 19, 1999 at 16:02:37, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>I do only useful checks. >> >>right... and I only buy stocks that go _up_ too. :) If you knew which >>checks were 'useful' and which were not, you could solve the game from the >>root position. > >And if you only knew which captures were useful and which not, you'd solve the >game from the root position too. Oh wait, isn't that what the SEE does? >So why shouldn't you also have a static check-evaluator? Of course it wouldn't >be perfect, but it might be good enough to let you do checks in the qsearch >without blowing up the tree too badly... The problem is that captures are self-limiting. Once a piece is removed, it won't be used again below that node. But checks are something altogether different. And the only thing that limits them is repetitions and the 50 move rule. Which isn't good enough, IMHO. I didn't stop doing q-search checks lightly. I did a _lot_ of testing to convince myself it was no worse, and it was much simpler, and it let me get away with other extensions in the basic search that I couldn't before.
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.