Author: Peter Berger
Date: 02:42:02 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2003 at 21:14:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >When you say something "identical" would have happened with the tables, you >overlook the power of probing the tables _deep_ in the search, so you simply >don't trade into such lost positions... Crafty doesn't trade into such a >position and _then_ realize "crap, lost position, shouldn't have done that." > >That's why the tables are important. > >Here, if a program thinks KRB vs KR is winning, it will be wrong most >of the time. You look _really_ silly winning a piece, trading your last >pawn, to end up in a nearly forced draw with KRB vs KR. I don't mean to repeat what Uri wrote and I agree to all of it, but the interesting issue is sth like KRBKPP of course, I should have worded that better. The problem is that for Crafty these positions are 0.00 so tend to be all equal while the usual knowledge of an opponent chessprogram to drive the king to the back row and try to mate is enough to create winning chances. The more interesting statistics for KRBKR would be with one king forced to the back rank and the opposing king close, I guess the numbers will look different then. Something I learned from watching computergames is that in this material constellation the pawns will usually be lost sooner or later, and the only one with winning chances is the bishop side.
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.