Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 12:48:22 01/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 1998 at 14:30:40, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>It wasn't Dan and Kathe, it was me. This was something I added to
>"blitz" around 1970 or so. Back then, it was searching 4-5 plies
>max, and had a USCF rating of around 1400, playing in local tournaments.
>But it kept getting hoodwinked in endings where the opponent would offer
>something to decoy the king away, and then the pawn could scamper in
>before the king could catch it. It was winning middlegames, but losing
>endgames. Remember too, that this was in the days of 4-5 plies of
>selective search, with *no* extensions and not even a real quiescence
>search. So this was a critical issue.
Bob, what kind of selection did you use in this early "Blitz"?
What do you mean by "not even a real quiescence search"?
I'm always interested in the history of chess programs, because I have a
long history too, and sometimes an old idea turns out to be usable again
in a modern context.
For example my first program in 1982 was based on a SEE. Later in 1992,
I droped the SEE and my program played better. Then in 1994 I used the
SEE again and my program was even better. In 1997 I droped the SEE
again, and Tiger improved much in the process.
Now, I'm considering another interesting way of using a SEE (if I can
write a fast enough one), and it may be the heart of the 12th version of
Tiger.
The SEE is the very first idea I had in 1980 when I tried to write my
first chess program. I suppose everybody started with the same idea. A
quiescence search, a less obvious idea, is in fact better. But... there
are others way to use a SEE, and this old idea is still alive.
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.