Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:39:29 12/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2000 at 16:52:33, Peter Berger wrote: >On December 12, 2000 at 16:30:51, Uri Blass wrote: > >>I do not know programs that think in the following words: >>"I cannot make progress in this structure so I will evaluate this >>structure as a draw" >> >> >>Uri > >This statement is wrong I think . I remember a very nice counter-example with >the German program Patzer that can understand a certain type of draw position by >an _exactly_ similar thought ( not too surprising btw IMHO , you even _phrased_ >it codeable ; only thing to define is progress and structure ) ! I agree that it is codeable but the big problem is to define structure. > >Please someone else : this was posted somewhere ( I think here ) ; can you give >the source ? > >Greetings. > >pete If we mean to the same position then I remember that patzer could find the draw by better static evaluation function. I agree it is similiar to my thought because the static evaluation included some information that can be calculated at 1 ply depth(the fact that the king has no safe squares to move into but my idea was more general and I did not think only of making progress by only one move. Uri
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.