Author: leonid
Date: 04:57:31 11/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 12, 1999 at 02:11:06, blass uri wrote: >On November 11, 1999 at 21:15:13, leonid wrote: > >>On November 11, 1999 at 20:21:26, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>>>It's already a lot. My own program had no opening book for 12 years. >>>> >>>>Real pleasure for me to hear this. >>>> >>>>But is your game a shareware or pofessional. If it is a shareware what is the >>>>address? Before tryed to find it through the Alta Vista but was incapable. And I >>>>have strong impression that I have seen the game under this name in the >>>>shareware list. >>> >>>Chess Tiger will be soon commercialized by Schröder BV under the name "The >>>REBEL-TIGER". Look at the Rebel Home Page. >>> >> >>Just before I found this message I jumped into big conversation between you and >>few other people about the data suted for the end of the game. Was very >>surprised to see that some people is not that eager to put space consuming data >>into their game. Probably the impact of this data is not that big as I expected. >> >>I left even there one small remarque when I found that one voice from Quebec >>sound to me too familiar... like so many separatist that pollute our soil here. >>Actually, I am French speaking and all the description in my game is done in >>French. Only I don't like to see in my country bigots and racist that actually >>could push my Canada into the shameful Balkans frame. >> >> >>>There has been a demo version of Chess Tiger named "Chess Tiger Light", but it >>>was only a very WEAK demo. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Question is how I can compare? Those "extensions" lost me in the darkness and I >>>>see no way out. >>> >>>Play against strong programs and identify where the problems are. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>It is not that simple as it sound. To undestand what I am been talking about >>think about recognition of the speed of the mate solving logic. When logic look >>for the minimum number of moves, in order to reach the mate, it will take >>certain time. This time will be huge compared with rapid and partial revision of >>the same position by specially designed "quick logic". Only "quick logic" can >>miss the mate completely, or find it only in much bigger number of moves. This >>is why in recognizing the real speed of the logic for solving the mate, or >>finding the positional move, every comparison should be executed on the "brute >>force" search level. It must be done at fixed depth and without any extensions. >>For now, I don't see how this simple task should be performed. >> >>Leonid. > > >It is not important to find the minimal number of moves for mate in a game >and there is no demage in finding mate in a bigger number of moves. > >The important thing is the level of playing. >You can play better by some rules of prunning and extensions. > >I do not understand how fixed depth without extensions can help you. > >Uri Your remark is only paritally true. It is true that when game plys better compared with the next one as a whole it have no importance in what way it was done. Do mate is found by partial, quick logic, or by perfect one. Do the positional move search goes by quick way or by perfect, complet brute force logic. In reality, we in our game, until now, do more partial way of search that otherwise. This is why we see the people to be excited when they talk about null-move technics. When computers will be more that weak and slow, like they are now, prominence of "perfect search" will become omnipresent. But we live in the glorious prehistoric period of primitive live and computing. What can we do about God's will! All this mess is here only because Our Lord was not a responsable programmer. He stayed with the code, after the Bible, only for 7 days. Second point. When you write your game, in just its beginning, it have good sense to compare your speed on the level of brute search, or it can be said "perfect logic". Once your "perfect logic" is on the place, you can make your search of all variation of speedy logics. Only when you found that your perfect search is really successful (goes maybe at light speed against usual games) your chances to write the speedy partial logic are more that present. Leonid
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.