Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 19:17:04 10/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2001 at 07:03:14, Tim Foden wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I decided that I would add a 2nd SEE to GLC to check whether GLC's SEE was
>working. I actually ported GCP's Sjeng SEE (that was posted to the forum a
>while ago).
>
>Both SEE routines now agree in most curcumstances, but one's like the following
>have cropped up (where they disagree):
>
>[D]5rk1/1pp2R1p/p1pb4/6q1/3P1p2/2P4r/PP1BQ1P1/5RKN w - - 2 0
>
>This can be evaluated in 2 ways...
>
>(1) BxP (+1000) BxB (-3500) R1xB (+3500) QxR (-5500) RxQ (+10000) RxR (-5500)
>.........+1000.......-2500........+1000.......-4500........+5500...........0
>
>>>> value = 0
>
>(2) BxP (+1000) BxB (-3500) R7xB (+3500) RxR (-5500) RxR (+5500) QxR (-5500)
>.........+1000.......-2500........+1000.......-4500.......+1000.......-4500
>
>>>> value = -2500
>
>So... on to the questions:
>
>a) Does anyone's SEE do anything intelligent in these cases?
>
>b) Is one of these right, and the other wrong? If so, which one?
>
>c) Do we actually care, as long as the SEE works in the majority of cases?
>
>Cheers, Tim.
I hope you don't mind if I do not answer your question directly (actually I do
not know the answer), but my opinion is that the job of designing a strong chess
program INCLUDES the work of designing a way to answer this question by a clear
YES or NO (or at least answers like "yes it works for me", or "no it does not
work for me").
I'm pretty sure that nobody out there knows the clear answer to your question,
and the same for the upcoming questions that will arise while you develop your
program.
So my advice would be that you start right now to think about a way to use your
computers so that THEY give you an answer.
Hope that helps...
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.