Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:12:02 06/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2000 at 18:47:30, Laurence Chen wrote: >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 How? If you have a closed position and two bishops, one is bad. Knights can hop from hole to hole in a blocked/closed position. Bishops get trapped behind friendly pawns and can't do anything but act like "tall pawns".
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.