Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 15:47:30 05/31/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2000 at 17:29:41, Marc van Hal wrote: >On May 31, 2000 at 10:59:45, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>On May 31, 2000 at 10:47:40, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: >> >>>On May 31, 2000 at 09:32:44, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>> >>>>On May 31, 2000 at 09:00:46, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: >>>> >>>>>Lets assume you know beforehand what move your program will choose, in every >>>>>position. This does not have to be the best move. >>>>> >>>>>You now extend on that move. Will that make your program stronger ? >>>>> >>>>>If yes, lets assume your program likes to move with its knights a lot. Will you >>>>>make it stronger by extending on knight moves ? >>>> >>>>I think that the opposite is true. Your program will extend uninteresting moves >>>>on cost of the remaining moves. The reached search depth will suffer >>>>correspondingly (assuming that you have some time limit for the search). >>>> >>>>I'm not sure if i got you right ? >>>> >>> >>>Why "uninteresting" ? If thats the move its going to choose anyway, it sure >>>wasn't uninteresting ! If half of its moves were knight-moves, then that does >>>mean that it considers knight-moves "interesting". >> >>You said that it is not necessarily the best move; thus it might be >>uninteresting. >>Well, anyway you consider to extend the 1st root move compared to the other root >>moves. What will you do when you get a new best move ? Will you replace a move >>searched to n+1 plys by a move searched to n plys ? I doubt that this is >>reasonable. A way out is to extend the search for the new best after replacing >>the old best immediately by an extra ply too. However, the extended search may >>fail low. How to handle this ? >>Besides the question of your suggestion will improve play (i doubt it), I see a >>lot of problems to make it work consistently in order to get a stable search. >> >>Uli >>> >>>>Regards, Uli > >I think it is a good idea for a positional program and in position openings >lines >Something I told before was that actualy the pawns and the knights are the soul >of chess instead of only the pawns >This espacialy counts in all closed positions. >I sugested to build something like the f12 function of Fritz3 to give the right >valeu for the squares of the knights like for White d4 In Fritz5.16 Frans did >give a higher valeu for this square cause from out here it can became tactical >on f5 and can go too e6,e4 d5,e5 d6,e6(Kasparov's octopus position) and c4 and >in some ocasions f5 >For Black the squares d5 ,e5 in d4,e4 and d3 and e3 and c5 and in some >ocasiansf4 >( so basicaly all knight moves torwards the centre f4 and f5 are indirect moves >torward the centre and most important try to keep the square strong with pawns >like in a kingsindian a5 is played to saveguard the knights position >If you keep this all in mind yes it will improve your program. >I actualy notice Junior6 likes to play with it's knights in a good way also with >saveguarding it's position and so on >But then again most likely my version of Junior6 is now the stongest of the >world with all the analyzes and games I played with it. I've got newsflash for you !!! Knights DON'T benefit from closed positions. Bishops benefit the most from closed positions !!! You've got it backwards. Laurence
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.