Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 09:28:16 06/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 1998 at 09:53:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >No theoretical bullshit, it's clear that all evidence shows how little >knowledge DB has, now it's time to show the audience why it's >so hard for low rated people to program chessknowledge. On your web page you once said that you thought that the average chess programmer's chess knowledge was about 1400. I think you are off by about 600 points, I think I am typical at about 2000. But I have also studied chess as it relates to computers. Whether or not this has helped my over the board play, I do not know, but I am quite happy discussing rams, duos, dispersion, distortion, and yes, majorities. Hsu is weaker than 2000 as far as I know, but he didn't write DB's eval code, Murray Campbell did, in consultation with players stronger than Murray, and as far as I know, Murray is pretty strong. >I doubt that Hsu has ever heart of the word 'pawn majority'. >I dropped some day this word among some chessprogrammers, >and they all didn't even know what the word means. Because being >the programmer he's the one who needs to implement so he needs to >be the one that must exactly understand what it is and what it is not. The stronger ones probably do. But even if they don't, it really doesn't matter *that* much, I think. I don't have pawn majority code in mine. It is pretty complicated to write, and even when I hash it it takes a lot of time to execute. I get burned from not having it, I am sure. I often have problems with opponents having distant passers, but the cases where it is a majority that causes problems by itself aren't that common, it seems, or at least they get covered by other things. bruce
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.