Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:22:24 01/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2000 at 15:32:20, Mike S. wrote: >On January 06, 2000 at 22:41:35, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>What he means is, it will transpose back even when there *might* be something >>better. When what the program could and should calculate is actually better than >>transposing, his program prefers to transpose. He did not mean to imply that the >>book was bad. For instance, it may prefer to get back into book, rather than win >>a piece. > >When the book is o.k., then there will be a reason not to win the piece. It >would make sense i.e., to avoid accepting a sacrifice which the program cannot >calculate through. If the book needs to be checked if it misses a better move, >than this has to be done before the release and corrected resp., the program >must trust it's book. >We would need examples to judge if Vincent's program had a disadvantage by >transposing back to the book I think. I'd be surprised. > >Regards, >M.Scheidl See my earlier post. We don't store sequences of moves... we store known book positions. that is the problem. Doing it like this you can make silly transpositions if you don't take care.
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.