Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 02:22:39 03/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 21, 2001 at 18:32:20, Tim Foden wrote: >On March 21, 2001 at 16:59:27, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>I have always been very impressed with Phalanx. >> >>For the same search depth, Phalanx will solve many problems that no other engine >>will solve at the same depth. That indicates to me that the search extensions >>involved are very smart. >> >>Also, Phalanx will find solutions to problems that other engines simply will not >>find. I think this is mostly related to king safety, but I am not sure. >> >>Phalanx is the little engine that could. >>;-) >> >>Lower NPS (factor of 2 to factor of 4), lower search depths (always 1 or 2 ply >>behind), and yet he can play with the big boys and give them all that they can >>handle. Pretty amazing, really. > >I have to agree. Phalanx is very impressive. > >I have been studying Phalanx's static evaluation function, and it does a lot of >clever things. I think one of the ones that helps with tactical stuff is that >it calculates all the pins, hung pieces, and attacked and defended squares. It >then goes on to use this info in relevant places. > >I've been trying to figure out how I could do some of this stuff using bitboards >in GLC... but I'm still trying to figure it out... Imagine if you could use the >eval func of Phalanx in a fast searcher :-)) > >Cheers, Tim. Just like Alfred below, I am too impressed with GLC. About implementing a Phalanx-like eval in a fast searcher: I believe that Christophe Theron has already done a good deal in that respect :-)(just go through Gambtit's games...) *** Djordje
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.