Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:34:03 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2000 at 03:13:20, stuart taylor wrote:
>On July 15, 2000 at 15:32:51, Jeroen Noomen wrote:
>
>>On July 15, 2000 at 13:51:41, Jorge Pichard wrote:
>>
>>>1a. A piece does not have to be developped to be considered dangerous on the
>>> Queen's side or King's side of the board, the point in case here, is
>>> weather to Castle so soon on one side or the other without realizing the
>>> future potential of those pieces located on the same side of the castled
>>> King.
>>
>>Once again: How to count that? If they are not developped and harmless, why not
>>castle? If these undevelopped pieces cannot be developped, why should not you
>>castle? This completely depends upon the position.
>>And how do you define 'potentially dangerous'? You are a genius if you can make
>>some source code out of this!
>>
>>>2a. Therefore, a subroutine would be very helpful on the earlier stage of the
>>> openings, where the center is closed. When a computer program play against
>>> a GM, it should not play the same opening so blindly as a human. what is a
>>> good opening for a human is not always a good opening for a computer.
>>
>>Easier said than done. What kind of subroutine? How to define in program code
>>'don't play the opening so blindly as a human'? The human ability is to get an
>>opening on the board that suits him and is bad for the opponent. Compuers only
>>have their opening book and primitive rules for opening play. Unfortunately
>>these do not work in blocked positions.
>>
>>Jeroen
>
>I was wondering what was meaned by programer of I think Fritz, or something, who
>recently said that he had more than enough improvements ready for another
>upgrade. And it sounded like once you have enough, you save other improvements
>for the following year!
> Is this so?
>Shouldn't a programmer with anual upgrading put his whole pride and glory into
>the very next upgrade, as if there will be no tommorow? e.g. to not allow
>blocked positions, will the programmers improve on this only gradually during
>next 3 years or so, instead of doing almost as much in very next upgrade?
>S.Taylor
As far as I know, we all put as much improvements as we can in the program when
we release a new version.
Don't forget that there is a tough competition between the top programs. Staying
on top is important, so it's totally out of question to hold something until the
following update. It makes no sense.
Improving a chess program is very time consuming. The problem is not the lack of
ideas, the problem is to have enough time in order to be able to test the ideas
and keep the good ones.
So I know I'll have new ideas to try after I release a new version, no need to
hold some of the improvements.
I guess Frans was saying that he has already improved his engine, so he COULD
release a new one right now. But I'm pretty sure he will keep on working and
improving the engine until the last minute. And everything will be published.
Because he has no clue about the progress of his competitors. He can only be
sure that the competition has improved.
Christophe
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.