Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:40:10 01/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2001 at 12:19:40, Christophe Theron wrote: >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. I think that all top chess programs do not ignore the king. Their evaluation of course may be wrong but they have positional scores for king safety. It is easy to see that Give them the following position: [D]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/K7/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQ1BNR w kq - 0 1 If they evaluates it as better for black then they do not ignore the king. 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.