Author: Jeroen Noomen
Date: 10:49:47 01/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2003 at 11:08:54, Uri Blass wrote: >It is not going to demage the program strength because in 99.99% of the cases >the program can see immediately that there is no draw. If you have a rule, you need time to check if the rule applies or not. If in 99,99% of the cases the answer is 'no', then why add the rule. >If you say that the time that is used for thinking about the problem can be used >better than you may be right but demaging the program strength is relative to >it's strength before the change. That is exactly what I mean. As a chess player I don't check at avery move whether I have a mate attack or not. Only when the position is such a way that there is a good chance of delivering mate. >You do not need to define all the exceptions. Then: Which ones to choose? >We are going to see but David Omid is going to write an article about it and I >believe that he implemented knowledge about a lot of fortress positions with no >practical demage. I think fortresses are more important in a regular chess game than the example given in this thread. But still: There are many of them. >The only point that I agree is that using a lot of time for small improvement is >not a good thing to do for playing strength but the point is that there are >things that are more productive for playing strength and not that it is demaging >for playing strength. If the position will never occur, you do not gain in playing strength and I cannot call it an improvement. If I will learn myself to play the endgame Queen versus Rook 100% correct, I will not be a single elopoint stronger. Jeroen
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.