Single Comment

I think you are making too much of this.

That is a disctinct possibility!  And that's why I wrote out all of that... so you could tell me if I'm on the wrong track, or overlooking the obvious.  I appreciate your time.  And, while I agree with what you've written, I'm not sure it justifies me doing anything differently.

You actually defined different classes of legality, and why stop at three? Generalizing this you could have an arbitrary number of such classes. I would prefer to call these 'priority classes'. You must play a move from the highest non-empty class.

Absolutely.  It did occur to me that one could invent a chess variant where there are even more tiers of legality...  But I'm not aware of any such game.  I've only come up with 3 instances of needing a middle ground between "legal" and "illegal".  I guess one could argue that as long as I'm making the change, I should go all the way and make an expandable hierarchy of legality.  But that seems more complicated and unnecessary.  And if it's not much more complicated, then it should be easy enough to adapt this should the need arise.  (And, while I would like to support as much as I reasonably can, it is not my goal to support anything that may come along.)

In Suicide captures are class 1, small in number, non-captures class 2, large in number. The situation that there would be a class-1 move we do not want to consider in QS, which would outlaw all moves we do want to consider, because these are all class 2, never can occur. Same with Jumping Chess; the unconsidered moves are by definition class 2. Of course QS is still affected, because if there are moves to be considered, there will be no stand pat.

I do not entirely understand this, but I think you are in agreement that "fallback legality" moves should be considered in qsearch in Giveaway and Jumping.

In Golem Chess typically all moves are class 1, and the occasional move that can be class 2 is even rare amongst captures. The logical thing to do, considering these statistics, is assume there will be class-1 moves amongst the non-captures.

I interpret this to mean that you agree that "fallback legality" moves should not be considered in qsearch in Golem Chess.

Note that the engine is very well capable of determining the distribution of moves over the various priority classes from nodes in the full-width part of the search. In particular you could make it keep track of how often there are no class-1 non-captures in the case there are no class-1 captures, and use that to decide whether to do a class-1 stand pat in QS.

Ok ... so if I understand correctly, your are not disputing that qsearch needs to be treated differently in Golem vs. Giveaway, but that, rather than a configurable variable that the programmer must set, the engine can determine this for itself.  Hopefully I got that correctly.  If so, my question is how much extra complication does this involve?  Certainly, I'd rather not add another user-configurable element if it's not necessary.  Heck, even the name of this hypothetical variable, "ConsiderFallbackLegalityMovesInQSearch", makes me a little embarassed.

Let's make sure I've isolated the questions to be decided correctly:

1. Do we need to expand beyond the standard determination of pseudo-legal moves as strictly legal or strictly illegal to account for games that have these types of "illegal unless there's nothing else" type moves?

2. If the answer to #1 is yes, do we just do as I've proposed and add a middle "fallback legality" category or do we go all the way and make a structure for any number of tiers of legality?

3. If the answer to #1 is "yes", regardless of the answer to #2, we have the issue of qsearch.  Do we have programmatic variables to determine what should be considered in qsearch, or do we determine that from statistical analysis?

Do I have this right?  And, if so, what are your answers to these questions?