Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 09:27:47 05/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 2000 at 19:24:06, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On May 14, 2000 at 16:53:46, Brian Richardson wrote: > >>Tinker's q-search lazy eval (material - max_pos_score)> beta return (like >>standing pat?), and (material + queen+pawn) <= alpha return (quasi-futility?) >>was working fairly well, until a K vs KBN endgame. Since it was not getting to >>the eval function, the special mating code was never used and Tinker ended up >>with a 50 move draw...Now I check for opponent's pieces <= one minor and skip. >> >>This was discussed in ICCA Vol 21 # 2 (Extended Futility and Dark Thought). I >>also have tried various regular futility, extended futility and razoring (as >>outlined in the ICCA article), but they did not seem to help, at least given >>Tinker's mix of searching algorithims. >> >>Anyone else getting "good" results with them? > >Take all that stuff out and do whatever you want and you'll probably still draw >in KBN v K. > >In 1980 I was studying KBN v K for some unknown reason, and I set it up on my >Chess Challenger 7, and prepared to be shown how to do it. Haha. 50 moves >later my king was still in the center. > >Things haven't gotten much better, unless you use endgame databases or have a >special function for this ending. It's hard for a program to get you in the >corner, and once there it's hard for it to understand that it's the wrong >corner, and it needs to get you into the other corner. > >bruce > > >bruce Hi! In 1984 Super Constellation won this endgame. Bertil
This page took 0.01 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.