Author: Dan Newman
Date: 01:10:24 05/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2000 at 18:08:21, stuart taylor wrote: >On May 01, 2000 at 05:18:13, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: > >>I should know better by now, but I didn't pay enough attention and now I don't >>know. >> >>I've seen Nunn tests, tournaments, all kind of kinky positions (supposed to be) >>unsolvable for chess programs. >> >>Are all these things really important to programmers? >> >>I stopped playing engine vs engine tournaments like that because I see no reason >>for them other than checking some of my own opening variations or chess ideas - >>to be tested by a few programs, for my self, without any meaning for others here >>around. >> >>But how about you programmers? If you would like feedback on your engines, >>should the non-programming lot of us test, and if yes, what and how? >>What information from actual chess playing (be it test suites or complete games, >>or analysis) do you use to pick out the flaws in your engine? >> >>Do you have any help from the info a lot of people offer on this message board? >> >>I'm very curious, as some of these procedures may help even me to beat chess >>programs easier or take advantage of weaknesses. >>Not that this is possible of course, as mediocre players like me.... well, been >>there, done that :)) >> >>Jeroen ;-} > >good that someone asks this, as I don't think that any of the practicing >programmers made even one comment about my question/thought on programming >by getting the program to constantly shuffle round the peices to ideal-possible >future positions and move according to that goal-if applicable according to much >analysis and many criteria. OK, maybe it's a daft idea, but it must have been so >daft that it isn't even worth trying to consider. Or perhaps it's so obvious >that every programmer thought about it only as a baby. I, at any rate still >don't know. >S.Taylor I think it's a good idea. It's one I've thought about (a little) and has been thought about at least as far back as 1972 (the Robin program I mentioned in the other thread). The problem I think is that it's a very much more difficult sort of program to write than the usual alpha/beta searcher. (Partly because very few people have worked on chess programs of this sort--so there is very little literature on it--and partly because it's just inherently more difficult.) I imagine that it would take a lot more work to become competitive with such a program too, so that by the time you catch up to where the alpha/beta searchers have already gotten, they will be even further ahead. Still, I'd like to try it sometime... -Dan.
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.