Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 03:01:58 12/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2003 at 00:54:50, Russell Reagan wrote: >On December 23, 2003 at 23:58:19, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >>you are describing just the big translation table, I have spoken of. >> >>I will try to explain the nature of a solution I would like to have >>(which is still not complete and in devlopment). >> >>Suppose the castling rigths are the following bits: bwl, bwr, bbl, bbr. >> >>a) if both kings are at original place, >> encode Kw = kb = (bwl, bwr, 0, bbl, bbr, 0) >>b) if only the white king is at original place, >> 1) O-O only -> place him immediately over or under the black king >> 2) O-O-O only -> place him immediately right or left to the black king >> 3) both castlings -> ... still no idea, sorry >>c) if only the black king is at original place, >> 1) O-O only -> place him immediately NW or SE the white king >> 2) O-O-O only -> place him immediately NE or SW to the white king >> 3) both castlings -> ... still no idea, sorry >> >>That this moment is the direction I am thinking of a solution. > >Why do you only use the relative locations of the two kings? Instead of using >north, south, east, west, and combinations of those, why not do it like this: > >If white king on a1 and black king on b1, then ... >If white king on b1 and black king on c1, then ... >If white king on c1 and black king on d1, then ... >... >If white king on e4 and black king on d5, then ... >and so on... [...] That would have the form of a big cryptic translation table. I already have mentioned, that such a solution would WORK. But I do not like it, because it would not be a TRANSPARENT approach. Reinhard.
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.