Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Thanks -- and a question about "fortress" recognition in programs

Author: J. Wesley Cleveland

Date: 18:30:30 03/22/02

Go up one level in this thread


On March 22, 2002 at 04:49:40, Aaron Tay wrote:

>On March 21, 2002 at 15:23:38, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On March 21, 2002 at 15:13:12, Steve wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks to all of you for your responses.  Is it possible to have programs
>>>recognize "fortresses" by instructing them to decide, when the evaluation has
>>>remained static throughout a certain number of ply, that the position must be a
>>>draw?
>
>It seems rather pointless to add this though in cases where you already drifted
>into a drawn position. I suppose for some programs, you can see some of the
>scores dropping, as the 50 move rule starts to come closer, those it's already
>useless in cases when it's drawn..
>
>
>>Hossa has done some work on detecting walls.  I think that fortress detection is
>>a good idea too.  The problem is that I don't know of a single algorithm to
>>detect such a thing.  A lot of times, we simply recognize a fortress.  But the
>>question is "How did our brains arrive at the 'stalemate' conclusion?"
>
>
>[D]8/5K2/8/8/5N2/4p3/3qN2k/8 b - -
>
>Easier to solve i think, the human sees that the queen alone cannot mate. And
>the king cannot move. Any attempt to sac the queen draws..
>
Not too easy, e.g. this position is lost for white
[D]5K2/8/8/8/5N2/4p3/3qN2k/8 b - -



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.