Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:19:40 01/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2001 at 03:54:27, martin fierz wrote: >On January 25, 2001 at 08:20:26, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>Howdy. >> >>Inspired by the thread on extensions, I was wondering whether the idea of >>negative extensions or reductions could be a good one. >> >>I mean, maybe many of the "unsound" pruning methods would be sounder if, instead >>of just pruning, they just adjusted the resulting depth down. In that way, a >>line would still be examined, only later. > >in computer checkers 'negative extensions' are a standard technique, schaeffer >used something like that in chinook and i use it too in my checkers program. of >course, checkers is much more suited to the concept: once you lose a piece in >checkers you are probably lost, so you can reduce the depth of these lines. in >chess you have a king which makes things more complicated... > >cheers > martin Some chess programs merely ignore the king and that's why I call them checkers programs. My own chess program used to be like that, so it's not a hard critic. Some top chess programs are still checkers programs. Christophe
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.