Author: J. Wesley Cleveland
Date: 10:27:20 10/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2001 at 11:27:24, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On October 14, 2001 at 09:01:32, Uri Blass wrote: > >>>Black played 53...h1=B :-)))) >> >>This is not the first time that I see this kind of mistake. >> >>I suspect that it may be better for practical games if programs stop using brute >>force and start to use selective search(not negative extensions but pruning at >>the root). >> >>Bishop or Rook promotions are the first candidates to prune at the root. > >This is most probably true for practical games. But it will make the program >look stupid in some studies. One could make this optional, but it would be error >prone (from a user point of view). > >And, as you mention correctly, negative extensions for this will probably not be >good, and may very likely even be counterproductive (at the root). > >Accidently, I have yesterday observed a similar game, with promotion to rook, >after which Yace could reach a draw, in probably totally lost position. > >Other then the total pruning of such moves, there I can see no easy cure for >this behaviour. (For example: The program will different hash info available >when processing 2 different promotion pieces, and therefor can come to a >different score, that can wrongly prefer an underpromotion). > >Regards, >Dieter Two suggestions: 1. If the expected response to promotion to queen is the capture of the queen, do not consider the underpromotions. 2. for this specific case, heavily penalize the value of a second bishop of the same color.
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.