Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 09:29:09 03/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
Is it not so that many programmers took over my coments and tried to put them in there programs? Just some programmers who did Ed Schroeder (Anti Gm and also the EcoTree where my ideas who he worked out. (I met Ed's evil twin here(hehe) After that we did get a sort of cold war.) Like I also did get With Jeroen Noomen because I did get no credit for my hard work,or suport that I realy had made many anelyses which where used for Rebels book.(cesaer de Leeuw and anelyses I send him) Actualy. I hate to bring up that old cow again but I used it to show that programers do use knowledge) Frans Morsh,Amir Ban And though he does not admit it either Also Christophe Theron Gambit tiger was the improved version I made of Alexall (Alexand1) for the Rebel Century contest.(Which I by the way already had created before the end of the contest including some other stronger settings.) And having general chess knowledge does help If you want to tune an engine. Having anelyser skils and memory does help more though.You can make your tunings much quicker Still it needs much works if one rule was set to high or to low. Only testings will show. But most of the general chess knowledge should be inserted in the program. It very much depends on this if your tuning will work or not. An example if you increase the pawn weaknes of Rebel it never does what it should do. (Trying to weaken the pawn position of the oponent with atacking moves and then take advantage of it. Knowing more about endgame pawn structures on an early stage. And solving it's own pawn weakneses. This is as far as I know one of the bigest weakneses of all programs of to day This could change the draw rate) It still doesn't care for doubled pawns it only plays more pawn moves. But The biggest problem of only having a certain style of play By a program With not to much inserted knowledge is that if it is very tactical it will play poor in the more quiet games. When it is very positional it will play poor in the more tactical games. So if the inserted positional knowledge is high A you make a tactical seting for it it is in balance. The more positional knowledge is inserted the more tactical the setting may be To keep the balance. Being a GM means you created one style and always try to look in 1 way to a position While the solution to the position can ask for a totaly diferent aproge. And I gues this is What Christophe means. PS I hope some people not will get to fustrated now After seeing the treuth It was not ment to be It was only ment to show that knowledge is used! Regards Marc
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.