Author: José Carlos
Date: 23:53:37 01/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2004 at 17:12:45, Tord Romstad wrote: >On January 24, 2004 at 15:57:50, Mike Siler wrote: > >>In an average middlegame position, around 80-85% of the nodes my program >>searches are quiesce nodes. I have a static exchange evaluator and I only search >>captures with SEE value > 0. It seems like other engines are always under 25% >>qnodes. What else should I be doing to reduce these numbers? > >Use the SEE more aggressively. When the static eval is below beta, but >static_eval+(value of capturing biggest hanging enemy piece) > beta+margin, >return beta. This is too risky unless your SEE is very sophisticated. This doesn't make sense unless you do a real qsearch in your SEE, which is ridiculous of course. Otherwise, you simply assume the opponent doesn't have a capture anywhere else on the board that can bring his score above alpha again. I do not understand why you assume that. José C. >There are >two ways to solve this problem: You can improve the accuracy of your SEE, but >this tends to make it much slower (of course). You can also use your static >evaluation function to estimate the tactical complexity of the position, and use >this estimate to decide whether it is safe to trust your SEE at this node. If >there >are pinned, trapped or overloaded pieces or too many pieces are hanging, you >search the captures, if not you just return beta. > >I use the second approach. My SEE is rather simple, and my qsearch uses >information >computed by the static eval to decide whether (and which) captures should be >searched. > >Tord
This page took 0.03 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.