Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:21:27 01/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2001 at 21:36:45, stuart taylor wrote:
>On January 06, 2001 at 20:48:08, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On January 05, 2001 at 14:41:51, David Rasmussen wrote:
>>
>>>I was wondering why some of the clever ideas I've been reading about, aren't
>>>used in the programs I know of.
>>>
>>>ETC, Enhanced Transposition Cutoff, seems like a very good idea and have been
>>>tested to perform well in practice. Why isn't it used?
>>>
>>>I can't think of any more ideas right now...
>>
>>
>>
>>A number of ideas that sound simple and powerful actually do not work at all in
>>computer chess.
>>
>>On the other hand, I know several strange and unsound ideas that are working
>>great in my program... I was lucky enough to try them, but if I had trusted my
>>feelings (and my logical sense) I would not have discovered them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>You said you didn't try most of your ideas yet. Why did you choose these?
Because when I am tweaking a specific area of my program I don't stop until I
have tried all I could try in this area.
This leads to trying some stupid ideas in the area I'm working on before some
other obvious ideas in another area.
>And, I'm happy to hear that actual programers have all the best ideas too, and
>not only people like what I used to be, but with no actual computer knowledge
>(only imagined speculations) or ways of testing things.
Sometimes the ideas that actually work look very strange because we assume that
we understand the essence of the Chess game, but we actually don't understand it
fully.
Analyzing these strange ideas and why they work can lead to a better
understanding of the game.
That's one of the very interesting parts of chess programming.
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.