Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:48:52 06/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2000 at 05:41:58, Laurence Chen wrote: >On June 01, 2000 at 12:12:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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". >If there's a stonewall then the knights are as bad as the bishops... Hence, I >cannot see your point of saying that knights can hop from hole to hole if >there's no hole to hop. There's such a thing as a bad knight as well as a bad >bishop. A closed position without any possibility of becoming open is bad for >both knights and bishops. A closed position with possibility of becoming open >can benefit the bishops if the knights are not able to gain any outposts. Not >all outposts are good for a knight. What good is to have a knight outpost on a >Queenside when the action is on the kingside? Chess is dynamic, not static, to >say that knights are better than bishops in so called closed positions is not >always true. >Laurence Nothing is "always true". But in general, if the pawns are locked, knights are better. That is all I ever see anyone see, because everybody knows that there are exceptions to any rule. As far as your stonewall, if you have two bishops, and I have two knights, how are you going to keep my knights out of the holes in the stonewall formation? Most common formation is c3/d4/e4/f4 for white, d5,e6,f5 for black. I see plenty of useful squares for knights to play with. The bishops have a real problem until some pawn breaks can be made to open up diagonals somewhere.
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.