Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 02:33:52 01/04/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 1998 at 18:08:55, Don Dailey wrote:
>I don't think we are arguing. (Now I'm arguing with you!) We are
>"actively discussing." I'm beginning to think Thorsten may be
>looking at it differently like you said and maybe we do not disagree
>at all (or maybe we do.) But disagree is good if one or both learn
>something. And I believe we both want this.
Yes, the discussion is interesting. I only got the feeling that you were
not talking about the same thing. And when I discovered that, new ideas
came to me!
>I've already picked up good ideas from many people and have re-thought
>some of my own ideas and continue to do so. When I do disagree with
>someone I will definitely post it so that they (or I) can learn.
>If I discover someone cannot handle this I will stop disagreeing with
>them and let their posts go by.
Yes, that will be my policy too. I'll use my time talking with people
able to understand what I say (even if I'm not clear in my posts or make
mistakes), and that give something interesting to think about.
You gave me some good information with another post about self-test.
Czub pointed his finger on something interesting with this asymetrical
search topic.
>I am also interested in asymetrical search (and evaluation) ideas. I
>think it's likely to pay off if done right. I believe Richards ideas
>are quite sound and the reason his program is not at the very top is
>only that he's lost a lot of interest in it.
Right. I'm looking for ideas to implement such a search. I'm not really
interested, for the moment, by asymetrical evaluation. I already use
some asymetrical terms in Tiger, but that's something very simple to
understand. For example, I care much more about my king's security than
about the opponent's.
The idea of the asymetrical search started like a little alarm in my
head. I'm sure you already had this kind of feeling. A simple idea that
seems good, but... I just have the idea. I don't know how to realize
it...
And there MUST be something interesting about it. If not, I would like
to prove it quickly, and get rid of it, because this idea is now
consuming a lot of my CPU time!
Hey, readers, any suggestion?
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.