Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:38:01 10/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2002 at 11:36:16, Omid David wrote: >On October 04, 2002 at 11:33:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On October 04, 2002 at 11:25:12, Daniel Clausen wrote: >> >>>On October 04, 2002 at 11:22:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On October 04, 2002 at 10:34:43, Omid David wrote: >>>> >>>>had fritz implemented such a scheme it would play 300 points weaker >>>>anyway. >>> >>>"Obviously" it's "impossible" to implement such a scheme, because you've tried >>>that already for 5 minutes and it didn't work? SCNR :) >>> >>>Sargon >> >>I played with it with DIEP a few years ago and it performed horrible. > >If you apply such method to each and every node in the search tree, it's natural >that the whole search is slowed down in a horrible manner. no you really are an idiotic programmer if you slow down that much by just a few heuristics. I already do a lot of scans on the board of diep. a full eval is like 100k clocks. so a scan over the board is not so expensive. i already scan the pawn structure extensively in fact. it's just a few functions i need to turn on to find otu things. >> >>when you have code that 'overrules' other code then you take away hundreds >>of patterns which normally compensate knowledge. it means that if that >>single pattern is incorrect, that you lose directly a game. > >Of course. And that's why your heuristic should be 100% correct and reliable. the problem of the whole chess game is that you have never 100% correct and reliable evaluation except if your opponent is mated. >Omid.
This page took 0.01 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.