Author: Chris Carson
Date: 08:08:44 06/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 1999 at 10:40:43, William H Rogers wrote: >On June 16, 1999 at 10:13:53, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On June 16, 1999 at 09:58:45, William H Rogers wrote: >> >>>On June 16, 1999 at 07:59:57, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>On June 16, 1999 at 05:36:21, alfred palang wrote: >>>> >>>>>Planning...this is where the big hole is with our programs. Tactics: programs >>>>>execute them with astonishing accuracy. Positionally: we need more >>>>>improvements! >>>> >snip >>You make a very good point. I think I know the program you are refering >>to, I have the book at home (by Newborn), but the name escapes me. >>Darkthought and Crafty have both done some deep thinking and noted that >>move selction continues to change with depth. I agree that knowledge >>is important, move selection is a good observation, I still wonder if >>all knowledge is necessary at 25 ply (some still is, just not sure >>what type, different in middle vs end?). It seems that tactical knowledge >>might be the easist (not sure though) to replace with fast hardware? >> >>Your comment reminds me of a quote (author unknown). When Capablanca >>was world champion he lost an exhibition game to a local club master. >>The story goes, a reporter asked Capa how far ahead he looked during the >>game, Capa replied "10 moves". The reporter asked the club master the >>same question, the club master replied "one, but it was the right move". :) >> >>Just remembered, was the program named Belle? >> >>Best Regards, >>Chris Carson > >Both Belle and TECH use the same primise and came to the same conclusions. >Tactical knowledge is based mainly on captures, etc. and that is why most chess >programs exceed when they search greater depths, but positional knowledge is one >of the main things that most programmers are seeking. Both Belle and TECH relied >upon tactics, mainly going to greater depths to find captures. It was not >enough. Control of center and of the board, ie. mobility is where most of the >better programs are finding their greatest strength. >Bill Bill, Very good points and thanks for the info on TECH. I agree that positional knowledge is where to look for greater strength in the best programs. If I understand this right, greater positional knowledge means a program will find a move at a lower ply. The questions is without the positional knowledge, how many ply would a "static eval" need to find that same move for the correct pv? Control of the center is important if it generates tactics that eventually lead to mate, same with mobility. Am I off base here? Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.