Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:07:07 08/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2003 at 08:05:39, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 19, 2003 at 07:43:08, Bo Persson wrote: > >>On August 19, 2003 at 06:19:59, Joost Buijs wrote: >> >>> >>>To me it looks wrong to skip losing captures from the quiescence search if the >>>losing captures are determined by a SEE that is wrong in some cases, e.g. pinned >>>pieces. If you use the SEE for move ordering purposes only this problem doesn't >>>exist. >> >>But it is always only an approximation, you just want it to be good enough to >>avoid flat out blunders. >> >>In a position like this >> >>[D]8/1p6/r1r5/8/8/8/8/R1R5 w - - 0 1 >> >>SEE will believe that the black rooks are both defended, but they are not. This >>is not a "pin", but an "overload" which is still missed. You just can't get it >>all (cheap). >> >> >>Bo Persson > >They are defended. > >Rxa6 Rxa6 > >if you want a better example then it is better to put a pawn at b6 and not only >at b7. > >Uri It is still wrong because Rxa6 Rxc1 It is better to put 2 knights and not 2 rooks to show that SEE may miss a good capture by white. Uri
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.