Author: martin fierz
Date: 13:12:35 07/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2004 at 10:30:24, Daniel Shawul wrote:
>On July 22, 2004 at 09:57:37, martin fierz wrote:
>
>>On July 22, 2004 at 08:24:32, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>>
>>>On July 21, 2004 at 10:20:30, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>This is probably old news to many, but I ran across the pages of Michael Buro
>>>>(http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~mburo/), and saw an article on ProbCut, highly
>>>>recommending it, and even mentioning its inclusion in a version of Crafty 18.15.
>>>>
>>>>"ProbCut works in chess on top of null-move search! Download
>>>>mpc_crafty_18.15.tgz to play with it. We encourage all chess programmers to
>>>>experiment with ProbCut!"
>>>>
>>>>One can download the article "ProbCut: An Effective Selective Extension of the
>>>>Alpha-Beta Algorithm" on his page of publications
>>>>(http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~mburo/publications.html) as well as a follow-up
>>>>article "A.X. Jiang and M. Buro, First Experimental Results of ProbCut Applied
>>>>to Chess", Proceedings of the Advances in Computer Games Conference 10, Graz
>>>>2003.
>>>>
>>>>For new programmers looking for material, this is certainly one, plus it might
>>>>be added to the links in the Computer Chess Resource Center.
>>>>
>>>> Albert
>>>
>>>To me, ProbCut just seems wrong. How can you throw out an 8 ply search based on
>>>a 4 ply search and expect to get things to work, unless your margin is just
>>>huge? (Null move is obviously completely different here).
>>
>>i suppose this depends on the game. e.g. checkers is much more benign in terms
>>of evaluation - you can hardly misevaluate a position seriously if you simply
>>count material. if you have won a man, you win the game (there are some
>>exceptions of course...). => using probcut there makes a lot of sense.
>>for chess, i don't see why it shouldn't work at all. of course nullmove is
>>different, but both are methods to realize when you can stop wasting your time
>>on useless positions. i'd say probcut is much closer to the human way of
>>reasoning than nullmove. when i play a game of chess i stop searching at some
>>point and evaluate the position, because i think it's safe to do so. i never
>>think "now if the opponent could make two moves in a row....".
>>
>>probcut will work on the majority of positions where one side has bludered
>>material. to get it working for the cases where one side sacced material for a
>>deadly attack is going to be the problem!
>>
>>cheers
>> martin
>
>Hello
>
hi daniel,
>are you the same guy who wrote a checkers interface?
yes! check out my profile ;-)
>4/5 years ago i tried to follow the protocol you put on your page
>and write a checkers program ("damma" in amharic).
do you mean "tried" or do you mean "succeeded"? i'm afraid my dll protocol isn't
very clear, i hope you meant succeeded!
>the rules for
>checkers here in my country are a bit different than yours.
they are different in every country :-(
> I think it
>is more similar to Italian Checkers. Also there is another similar game
>"Tankegna" where a king is allowed to move any no of squares like a queen.
>Are there lots of engines compatible to your interface[like in WinBoard]?
there are some; but not very many - check out http://www.fierz.ch/engines.htm
there are some more which are unpublished, i know of at least 3 english checkers
engines that exist.
>I have a already a dll somewhat compatible to yours.
hmm, what could "somewhat" compatible mean? if it works under CB i'd love to add
a link to your engine if you have it for download. if you don't have a webpage
i'd be happy to host it!
cheers
martin
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.