Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 00:30:47 02/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 1999 at 14:50:24, James Robertson wrote: >On February 17, 1999 at 03:56:17, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >> >>On February 16, 1999 at 16:26:53, James Robertson wrote: >> >>>My program keeps falling prey to king attacks. Although it does very well >>>tactically when it's king is not threatened, it frequently plays combinations >>>that win material (it thinks), only to find, say, a back-rank mate that went >>>unnoticed. I am using a one-reply-to-check extension, the mate extension after >>>null move, and extending half a ply whenever there is a check in the tree. No >>>check detection is done in the q-search. Are there any other standard check >>>extensions I am not doing? >>> >>>James >> >>I have had similar problems regarding blindness for back-rank mates. I tried to >>solve it this way: my the static evaluation determines if a king is on a weak >>back rank (e.g only escape squares to same rank and neither friendly rook nor >>friendly queen on the back rank to protect, ...). In this case the ecaluation >>sets a flag, which controls the move generation of the queiscence in order to >>also generate checking moves wth queen and rook to unprotected squares on the >>weaked back rank ; seems to help and doesn't cost too much, if you do this only >>close to the last full search ply. >> >>Uli > >This is an interesting suggestion; I'll try it out. > >James What I forgot to mention: in those cases where you have generated these checking moves, you have to verify it it's a mate. Uli
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.