Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:46:28 08/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2004 at 11:34:31, Alessandro Scotti wrote: >On August 24, 2004 at 11:24:28, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On August 24, 2004 at 10:40:15, Alessandro Scotti wrote: >> >>>Ok but then you don't propagate the mate score out of the quiesce, right? >> >>And why not? > >Well if I knew why I wouldn't be asking! (*) :-) > >For now my reason is: there is no proof that a score is mate out of quiesce, >because quiesce doesn't examine all possible moves but only part of them. After >reading several replies this doesn't seem to be a popular opinion, though, but >that's how I see things at present... > >(*) Hope English tenses are correct here! You miss the point. I reach a node X, I can play a move which lets my opponent mate me, or I can stand pat. The way around this is to notice that you are in check, and force the q-search to look at _all_ legal replies, and eliminate the "stand pat" option. Either way will produce a valid search result. The latter will find forced mates more accurately of course...
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.