Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 20:08:19 05/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2000 at 12:27:47, Bertil Eklund wrote: >On May 14, 2000 at 19:24:06, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On May 14, 2000 at 16:53:46, Brian Richardson wrote: >> >>>Tinker's q-search lazy eval (material - max_pos_score)> beta return (like >>>standing pat?), and (material + queen+pawn) <= alpha return (quasi-futility?) >>>was working fairly well, until a K vs KBN endgame. Since it was not getting to >>>the eval function, the special mating code was never used and Tinker ended up >>>with a 50 move draw...Now I check for opponent's pieces <= one minor and skip. >>> >>>This was discussed in ICCA Vol 21 # 2 (Extended Futility and Dark Thought). I >>>also have tried various regular futility, extended futility and razoring (as >>>outlined in the ICCA article), but they did not seem to help, at least given >>>Tinker's mix of searching algorithims. >>> >>>Anyone else getting "good" results with them? >> >>Take all that stuff out and do whatever you want and you'll probably still draw >>in KBN v K. >> >>In 1980 I was studying KBN v K for some unknown reason, and I set it up on my >>Chess Challenger 7, and prepared to be shown how to do it. Haha. 50 moves >>later my king was still in the center. >> >>Things haven't gotten much better, unless you use endgame databases or have a >>special function for this ending. It's hard for a program to get you in the >>corner, and once there it's hard for it to understand that it's the wrong >>corner, and it needs to get you into the other corner. >> >>bruce >> >> >>bruce >Hi! > >In 1984 Super Constellation won this endgame. > >Bertil Yes, it probably had a special evaluation function for it. bruce
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.