Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:06:48 04/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 07, 2001 at 22:31:05, Aaron Tay wrote: >On April 07, 2001 at 17:31:12, Vine Smith wrote: > >>On April 07, 2001 at 13:13:25, Aaron Tay wrote: >> >>>On April 07, 2001 at 06:37:01, Vine Smith wrote: >>> >>>>On April 06, 2001 at 23:49:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 06, 2001 at 16:13:11, Vine Smith wrote: >>>>>If you look at the documentation file, "evaluation" command, you can scale >>>>>king safety up, make it asymmetric in the opposite direction that it is now >>>>>so that the opponent's king safety is more important that crafty's king safety, >>>>>then ramp up the 'tropism' term... >>>>I'll give it a try. Are you interested in hearing of any results or testing? >>>>Also, if you have any numeric guidelines, such as "Don't set king safety higher >>>>than x, or it just gets ridiculous", I'd appreciate the info. >>> >>>I doubt it will work. My guess is you really have to work on adding more >>>knowledge rather than just shifting the weights on existing postional factors.. >>>But what do I know..?? > >>Perhaps, but it's worth trying anyway. I suppose Crafty's existing positional >>factors were fine-tuned by autoplay against other Crafty versions, but what >>about versus other programs? > >I'm sure Dr Hyatt will comment if he wishes, but I seriously doubt this is the >case.AFAIK from various postings, Crafty is tested mainly on ICC against Humans >and other computers ,with a heavier weightage against Humans , and I believe the >policy is not to play against Crafty clones.. 100% of my testing is against IM/GM _humans_. I occasionally watch games vs other computer programs, but generally don't pay much attention unless I see a repeated "theme" in multiple losses. The human problem is _far_ from being solved. And it is a very interesting problem... > >So, there is no autoplay at all.. > >>And, against human opponents, who would find an >>aggressive style more unnerving? > >Perhaps..But Crafty currently is already geared more towards playing against >Humans I think.. > >>Maybe other factors will need adjustment as >>well -- I don't think an attacking program should worry too much about pawn >>structure, for instance. > > > >>But my question is whether I would just be duplicating >>someone else's efforts; haven't there been some Crafty "clones" already along >>such lines, including one which played the "Halloween Attack" a lot (1.e4 e5 >>2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe4?!)? > >I believe that was started by Hossa, which is not a Crafty clone. It was originally a crafty clone. I don't remember the handle he used, but the programmer of Hossa used to use Crafty and build a huge "Halloween" book. It was _very_ dangerous in that opening too. :)
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.