Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: What approach do you use to handle castling/en passant for repetition?

Author: Michael White

Date: 06:13:16 03/03/00

Go up one level in this thread

On March 01, 2000 at 18:26:44, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On March 01, 2000 at 14:31:40, blass uri wrote:
>>On March 01, 2000 at 12:31:52, Peter Kappler wrote:
>>>On March 01, 2000 at 05:19:38, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>>>On February 29, 2000 at 17:56:25, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>I asked you to back up your argument and you gave me some random numbers. Now
>>>>>>you are asking me if I need confirmation that divide-by-zero is bad. It's no
>>>>>>secret that you are being extremely insulting to me.
>>>>>Tom...  look at _your_ response.  A curt "run some tests and prove I am wrong."
>>>>>My position is "you run some test and prove you are right."  I already gave one
>>>>Scientific papers do not look like this:
>>>>"Electrons are green. If you don't agree, prove me wrong."
>>>>You told me that ignoring the EP square is a big mistake. But your argument is
>>>>like the "scientific paper" above. (See the text I quoted.)
>>>I must disagree here.  He told you about a specific incident where this caused a
>>>problem in Crafty.  Why do you keep insisting that he offer more proof?
>>>If you feel so strongly about this, conduct your own experiments to prove Bob
>>The question is not if ignoring the EP square can cause problems but what is the
>>probability that it practically cause problems in games
>>There is no doubt that it can cause problems but if it cause problems only in 1
>>out of 10000 games then saying that it is a big mistake to ignore EP square is
>>wrong and using the same time to fix other problems in programs is more
>>important for rating.
>>If it can cause problems in 1 out of 20 games then saying that it is a big
>>mistake is right.
>>The point is not that Tom claims that Bob is wrong but the fact that Bob did
>>not give data about the practical question.
>>It is possible to get a good estimate for the relevant probability by dividing
>>the number of games when ignoring the EP square caused problems by the number of
>>total relevant games
>The data would be difficult to obtain.  Who would want to play games with a
>known bug, just to see how many games it screwed up?  Who would want to go
>thru each of those games, move by move, to see where the EP problem actually
>influenced a score vs when it didn't?
>Lot of work, zero return.  For bugs this simple, just fix them and go on.
>It takes a couple of lines of code.

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.