Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:41:52 12/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2000 at 08:20:34, Laurence Chen wrote:
>Well spoken Christopher. You're a scholar, and gentleman. I like your new
>Gambit Tiger, and like you said, when Gambit Tiger succeeds in his King hunting,
>it looks like a GM playing, when it fails it looks like a fool. However, I
>believe that you are moving in the right direction in trying to solve King
>hunting, like Fischer once said, the game ends when the king is checkmated. Or
>to quote Vukovic, "the ultimate aim of each player is, as a rule, the mating of
>the opponent's king, and an action with this aim, whether it is direct or
>indirect, is called an attack (in a narrower sense of the word) or a mating
>attack".
You are right. Programmers have discovered a long time ago that an indirect way
to do it is to let their program get a material advantage and dragging it on
until the endgame. Then from that point mating becomes an easy problem to solve.
The advantage is that it is much simpler to program, and the result is almost
the same. However, the problem is that these programs tend to play checkers, not
chess.
My program was one of these until recently.
Now I try to reach the mating stage much earlier in the game, but I can tell you
it is much more difficult! :)
> I hope you will continue improve Gambit Tiger in its attacking
>evaluation. It's like watching Alekhine or Fischer in action. Kudos to you and
>your Gambit Tiger.
Thanks!
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.