Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: David Eppstein

Date: 09:43:13 07/23/99

Go up one level in this thread


On July 23, 1999 at 09:10:37, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
> I don't doubt that at the icc server using last ply pruning
> and not using checks in qsearch work together very well.
>
> In diep i don't use last ply pruning yet (although i experimented
> with it of course a lot) and therefore i can do checks in
> qsearch.

My concern with not doing checks in the qsearch is that you will misevaluate
positions in which something is protected indirectly by tactics rather than
directly by another piece.  The q search is supposed to resolve the current
material balance, so it should look at checks that change the material balance:
skewers, forks, and discoveries.

I am not expecting qsearch to find mating attacks, that's what the regular
search is for and that way lies huge blowups in the qsearch tree size.  If you
restrict yourself to only checks that affect material, I think the tree size may
not blow up so much.  And, I think, one can use SEE-like techniques to
distinguish those checks from the other ones.

But in Crafty's case, it is hard to argue with success...



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.