Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 14:16:33 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 16:43:24, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 14, 2000 at 16:31:12, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 14, 2000 at 15:55:55, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>Here are a set of tough positions to search deeply. Just finding a mate is not >>>good enough, uless you can *prove* it is the shortest mate. >> >>Finding a mate is good enough even if you cannot prove that it is the shortest >>mate. > >It's good enough to win. It's not good enough to find the most beautiful >solution. In this case, it is a matter of goals. You can simply ignore any >where you find checkmates if you don't like that part of the challenge. There is nothing particularly beautiful about a flashy mate when something simpler is available. In fact, many top players regard the flashy mate as a mistake for practical reasons. In a chess game, it is illogical and pointless to expend extra effort to find them. > >>Doing mistakes of not finding the shortest mate is going to change nothing in >>rating points so I do not see the importance of it for normal chess programs >>that are not mate solvers. > >Only a few of these will be a sure mate in 16 plies. Ignore those, if you so >choose. > >>I do not see the point of searching to 16 plies. > >Stop at two plies then. Deeper is better. > >>It is easy to search faster if you do more pruning. > >But more error prone. If you search 20 plies by pruning but lose in 5 moves >because of something you pruned out, it's not such a great idea. But if you can >search 20 plies by extensive pruning and always get the same answers as a brute >force search, then you have found something spectacular. Alpha-Beta (in >particular) gets the same answer as exhaustive search, and only requres sqrt(n) >tests provided you order the moves correctly.
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.