Author: Tim Foden
Date: 00:23:23 10/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2001 at 22:17:04, Christophe Theron wrote: >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... It *may* do :) Seriously though, I understand what you are saying. I believe I have been getting towards this idea myself, as I am finding it very difficult to improve the strength of my program now. I think I have done all the easy things... I now have to actually test each change I make to see if it is a good or bad thing. This was one of the reasons I added a second SEE to GLC (to make sure the first one was working!). It turns out that (a) I think it was working, and (b) I still don't know this for sure! :) Cheers, Tim.
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.