Author: Albert Silver
Date: 14:55:02 03/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 22, 2001 at 05:25:55, Djordje Vidanovic wrote:
>On March 22, 2001 at 05:23:50, Djordje Vidanovic wrote:
>
>>On March 22, 2001 at 05:22:39, Djordje Vidanovic wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>
>>Erratum: ... I am too => I too am... :)
>>
>>
>>*** Djordje
>
>
>This seems to be one of those days :) Erratum 2: ... Gambtit => Gambit!
>Please, no one bring up Freudian slips or similar :)
Freudian slips? I prefer Fruit of the Loom underwear myself, but your
recommendation is noted.
Albert
>
>
>*** 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.