Author: Ernst A. Heinz
Date: 09:58:41 12/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Scott, >I've been reading an ICCA article about Interior Node Recognizers and thinking >about adding them to my search. There are examples for KBBvK and KBNvK in this >article. The "score" that the recognizers return for a position are based on >the material balance, a bonus for having a recognized win, the distance between >the kings and the distance between the lone king and the (correct) corner of the >board. The bonus for winning is only 2.5 pawns, if I understand this article >correctly? Why is this so low -- if it's a recognized winning position >shouldn't the bonus be enough to make it stand out among other configurations >that could occur in the search tree? Bruce already answered this one correctly: the scores are intended to avoid dumb-looking transitions. If I remember correctly, my article about interior-node recognizers actually explains this. >Is it worth implementing these types of things when there are endgame databases >available? Definitely yes! Before starting your implementation, you should also read my article on knowledgeable encoding of endgame databases in the ICCA Journal or have a look at my book on "Scalable Search in Computer Chess" (http://supertech.lcs.mit.edu/~heinz/node1.html). The combination of interior-node recognizers and endgame databases in RAM really excels. >I see some of this type of code in crafty's eval -- was >the overhead of recognizing at every search node too high? Why is this in the >eval as opposed to in search? Interior-node recognition requires a game-theoretical win/draw/loss decision. Inexact heuristic knowledge is not sufficient for interior-node recognition but may still be very useful for evaluation purposes. =Ernst=
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.