Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Static Check Evaluator (was: Re: Help with Static Exchange Evaluator)

Author: Heiko Mikala

Date: 13:43:47 07/20/99

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...

Hi David!

These sentences convinced me. Now, do you have any ideas, how such a "SCE"
could be implemented? Are there any existing papers about this, existing
algorithms?
Of course I could spend much energy and implement my own ideas, but maybe
others did that before, like it was done with SEE. Any ideas?


Regards,

Heiko.



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.