Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:23:16 09/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2000 at 03:29:50, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 15, 2000 at 23:03:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On September 15, 2000 at 15:01:33, Uri Blass wrote: ><snipped> >>>In order to solve chess you do not need tablebases of all the legal position but >>>only tablebases of all the logical position. >> >>>You do not need to analyze illogical lines like 1.e4 f6 2.e5 g5 3.e6 in order to >>>solve chess because it is clear that you never reach this position in practical >>>game. >> >>This is bullshit. >> >>A program isn't smart enough to know e4 f6 is nonsense. > >It can be smart enough to not analyze 1.e4 f6 2.e5 g5 3.e6 because 3.Qh5# is >better. > >I did not say that it is smart enough to know that 1...f6 is illogical and if >1.e4 is the first move it needs to know how to play after 1.e4 f6 so it does >need to analyze 1.e4 f6 but it does not need to analyze the line that I gave >because 2...g5 is illogical move and 3.e6 is another illogical move and there is >no point in knowing the right move in cases that both sides did mistakes because >these positions will never happen in games. > >Uri You still have problems understanding how search works in computerchess. Obviously e6 doesn't get analyzed if Qh5 gives a cutoff already, but all other nonsense moves in our eyes like e4 f6 d4 a5 and such they sure need to get analyzed further, so many nonsense lines in our eyes need to get analyzed till the far end. Only e4 h5 Qxh5 Rxh5 doesn't get analyzed *too* far, because of nullmove, which proofs again the big use of nullmove.
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.