Author: ujecrh
Date: 15:23:06 05/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2000 at 19:32:58, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >Yes, though "simply" sounds a bit hand-waving-ish. ;-) > >Dave I am not sure about that and still believe that it is not big deal (but it is true that the fewer you know the blinder you are - ok, a native English speaker could say it better :o) My belief is that effort has mostly been driven by real weaknesses and programmers do not do things because they are easier to do, they work on a topic because this is necessary. Early chess programs were well known for their weaknesses in endgame where even an amateur human can easilly see deep lines with simple logic. Look in todays programs all the knowledge they have to understand pawn advances, centralization, opposition etc. All this knowledge coupled with faster hardware and clever hash use makes many of them strong endgames players. Today, the problem seems more to be in some closed positions handling and some pattern recognition for example. Then programmers work on this. Opening is not an issue because engines do not get outplayed in this phase so often and I think this is the reason why people do not work on it, nothing to do with the complexity at all. Of course, I can be wrong. Ujecrh
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.