Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:09:44 12/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2000 at 18:45:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 08, 2000 at 09:44:48, Uri Blass wrote: > >> >>I do not think that the main improvement in chess program is the engine and not >>the opening book. >> >>The problem with fisher random opening is that you get positions that usually >>are not from regualr chess games and it is possible that some improvement in >>regular chess is not an improvement in fisher random opening. >> >>For example the sides often cannot castle in random chess so knowledge about >>castling cannot be used. >> >>I think that it is better to use random positions from practical games if you >>want to test the strength of the engine without opening book. >> >>Of course the 2 programs should play both sides of the positions. >> >>I think that even playing games from positions like 1.a3 a6 is more similiar to >>chess than random chess because the sides can castle and the ideas in the game >>are more similiar to chess. >> >>Uri > >I thought castling was legal in _all_ "Fischer-random" layouts? IE some ways >to place pieces aren't legal to make this work. It means that the rules are different than chess so programs cannot play it or that the rooks and the king are in their original place and in this case the number of cases is clearly smaller(30 options,5 options to put the queen and 6 options to put the bishops). Castling was only an example and even when the sides can castle by the rules of chess that programs know the situation is different from normal chess games. Uri
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.