Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:19:40 01/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2001 at 03:54:27, martin fierz wrote:
>On January 25, 2001 at 08:20:26, David Rasmussen wrote:
>
>>Howdy.
>>
>>Inspired by the thread on extensions, I was wondering whether the idea of
>>negative extensions or reductions could be a good one.
>>
>>I mean, maybe many of the "unsound" pruning methods would be sounder if, instead
>>of just pruning, they just adjusted the resulting depth down. In that way, a
>>line would still be examined, only later.
>
>in computer checkers 'negative extensions' are a standard technique, schaeffer
>used something like that in chinook and i use it too in my checkers program. of
>course, checkers is much more suited to the concept: once you lose a piece in
>checkers you are probably lost, so you can reduce the depth of these lines. in
>chess you have a king which makes things more complicated...
>
>cheers
> martin
Some chess programs merely ignore the king and that's why I call them checkers
programs.
My own chess program used to be like that, so it's not a hard critic. Some top
chess programs are still checkers programs.
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.