Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: The Need for Fischer Random Chess !

Author: Tord Romstad

Date: 07:22:18 06/05/04

Go up one level in this thread


On June 05, 2004 at 06:50:43, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:

>Well, Tord,
>
>you seem to be convinced that switching to FRC would not raise any new
>progress in computer chess. But the missing of huge opening libraries
>alone might be a reason to force FRC engine programers to create a new
>sort of opening intelligence, which than could be fruitfull in conventional
>chess game, too.

Yes, at least I am convinced that switching to FRC would not raise any
*dramatic* new progress in computer chess.  It is possible that by working
hard on FRC for some time you would end up with some eval terms which
would improve the strength in conventional chess as well, but I think you
would achieve a similar increase in strength if you spent the same amount
of time working on improvements in other areas.

>But I agree, that simply switching to FRC might be a to small step one
>could go. Therfore I actually am writing an engine which is able to play
>both, FRC and Capablanca random chess, covering all variants based on
>Capablanca's extended chess piece set on a 10x8 square board.

I've already done FRC (though admittedly not very well), and it is possible
that I will attack Capablanca's chess some time in the future.  But first
I want to implement Glinski's chess, which is by far my favorite variant.

>But still there are GUIs missing, which could handle that type of engines.

My GUI will probably be able to handle rectangular and hexagonal boards
of arbitrary sizes when it is finished, but unfortunately it will only run
in Mac OS and possibly Linux.

Tord



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.