Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:42:42 02/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2004 at 07:51:01, Peter Fendrich wrote: >On February 13, 2004 at 10:35:06, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 13, 2004 at 10:13:26, Peter Fendrich wrote: >> >>>On February 13, 2004 at 00:28:13, Paul Doire wrote: >>> >>>>Hi All, >>>> >>>>I am interested in knowing the strengths of all who post here. >>>>Whether it is USCF or FIDE.To import chess knowledge into chess programs >>>>seems to require the programmer to be strong or at minimum, their resources to >>>>be strong. Who dares to tell...and dares to tell of those who will not tell. >>>>Some human analysis we see would carry more weight knowing the strength of the >>>>analyst. Do you dare to tell? >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Paul >>> >>>I'm quite convinced that the correlation between being a strong chess player and >>>a strong chess programmer is not very high. It's far more important to be a good >>>programmer than a good chess player in order to produce a strong chess program. >>>Of course the programmer must have rather good knowledge about different chess >>>elements but that is not at all the same as being strong in OTB play. I even >>>beleive that a very strong OTB player might have some troubles to lower his >>>level of play to the level of an evaluation function in a chess program... >>>/Peter >> >>I do not agree with the last claim. >>strong players do not need to lower their level of play. >> >>Even 1500 players know about fortress positions when most chess engines do not >>have the knowledge. >> >>This is not a problem for the programmers so for the same reason the fact that >>some programmer is a strong player should not be a problem. >> >> >>If you try to teach a chess program everything that you know you have problems >>and the question if you are a strong player or not strong player is not >>important and the problem is that you simply do not know to give definitions to >>your knowledge. >> >>Uri > >I really shouldn't speak for others than myself but I had some troubles with >that and I think that a very strong OTB player might have the same or even more >of it. >Not a big obstacle compared to all others but it's one of them... >/Peter Movei does not know a lot of things that I know but at these days I decided to try to teach it things that I do not know about KPK endgame(I know that it is not the best way to improve the program as fast as possible). I try to write a function that will get the position and give me the result win draw without looking at a table. I use Dieter's table for debugging my program. At this point I have almost 500 lines of code when most of them are for white to move and still have 3000 cases when I return do not know as an answer. I only look at positions when the pawn is white pawn in column a,b,c,d and the black king is not in check so I still have a lot of undecided cases. There is probably better ways to improve the program but I want at least to solve the problem of one simple endgame not by tables. I try to get progress in 2 directions: 1)inventing more rules for undecided cases(I look at the first undecided position and try to define a rule based on it but unfortunately there are cases when the rule is only good for less than 1% of the remaining position). 2)trying to look at my code to see if I can generalize rules to do the code shorter(I am practically sure that it is possible). Uri
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.