Author: James Robertson
Date: 19:32:10 05/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 1999 at 23:44:36, Jon Dart wrote: >It is a subjective impression, but Comet seems to me like one of >the more aggressive engines. > >However, a couple more comments: check extensions and king safety >are not really related all that closely. King safety is a positional >evaluation and it is most effective when it can detect threats whose >full effect will appear only over the program's search horizon. I've >found the best way to tune king safety is to play humans on the >chess servers. Even expert-level players can and do work up an >effective attack, and many are computer-savvy enough to do a >gradual assault that first makes weaknesses and then exploits them. I see your point; I am not worried about king safety, since I know my program will compromise it's king's safety no matter what. :\ Frequently, however, it falls to an attack on it's weakened king that could be avoided (I think) by better extensions. James > >Check extensions can make searches more effective, by helping to >find "deep" tactics that you would otherwise miss; but it's a very >double-edged tool. You will solve some tactical problems faster >with a check extension, but you will probably solve some slower, >too, since sometimes extending just makes your tree bigger without >getting you a much more accurate score. I find test suites useful >for tuning stuff like this, because you will be able to see the >tradeoffs on a range of tactical positions. > >--Jon
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.