Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 04:00:39 05/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
>On May 29, 2001 at 13:02:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: <snip> >However bad luck struck for diep this time. Something went wrong >with king safety and diep walked its king into the center. Now despite >that Ferret kept on playing nullmoves and my score went high. So >i assume somewhere there a penalty must have had a plus instead of >a minus. Perhaps i'll figure it out tonight. Anyway. Playing with a rook >less lost quick for DIEP though. Complete crush after playing with that >rook less. Great debug info though! I feel the same way about my own tournament games--great debug info! I approach my losses the same as my wins (often a bit more eagerly)--an opportunity to leisurely study, in a post-mortem, the positions and move choices for both sides, using the computer and any available books, to learn what works and what doesn't work, and to learn how better to handle similar positions in the future (whether Black or White, attacker or defender). The search for truth in chess is the lasting challenge and the greatest puzzle to solve, even after a game loss. <snip> >Also in the evening i couldn't turn on sound because i'm just 4 feet away >from the bedroom of my neighbours. Only a stone wall is between me >and my neighbours bedroom! This situation is well known. A sound attacker is often deterred by the Stonewall Defence! <snip> >For some reason DIEP exchanged queens which still is a mystery for me, >and when thinking in the time of the opponent i got big fail lows. The >reason for this was obvious. Where passive programs like shredder have >the habit to allow the opponent to make mistakes, the activity play of >diep FORCES the opponent to make strong moves. I'm not sure you are programming Diep with the right goals in mind. A little more subtlety might pay big dividends. You are supposed to try to *force* your opponent into making *weak* moves. Next best thing to *forcing* them to make weak moves, is to set a trap to *let* them make weak moves (purely voluntary on their part, of course!). If you offer *more* opportunities to your opponent to make *weak* moves, than the opportunities you offer where you *force* them to make *strong* moves, your opponent will be unlikely to make so many strong moves! :) > > round 7 : Patzer - diep 1-0 > >Now patzer i can describe as a program written by a very nice person, >but the program is about the most antipositional which exists on earth. >Patzer is one of those programs that LIKES to close positions and likes >to put everything on the wrong color and play on the opposite wing as >where its king is. > >If patzer castles short then it attacks at the queen side, if it castles >long it attacks at the king side. You can blindfolded write that down, >whether it's good or not, it simply is doing it. > >Also a passer in patzer at 7th rank is worth +3.0 pawns, with very few >exceptions. > >Now that's about all knowledge that's in patzer. Diep actually *lost* to an anti-positional program with only 3 or 4 pieces of knowledge in it? I'm impressed! Hmm, sounds like Diep's positional play (anti anti-positional) is sometimes a bit shallow. <snip> >Nevertheless i have great debug info again from this game to improve >diep's endgame. That's the spirit! <snip> > - daily answerring loads of email Here you are supposed to say 'fan email'--just so we know. Plus, please do not omit to use an English spellchecker (Diep can't check spelling, huh?--oh well). The less 'r's you type, the more time you have to debug! And to program more destrructive and obstrructive strategies to unleash on future opponents! I have to agrree with some crritics--you rreally need a PRr perrson on yourr side. :) <snip> >Now compare my book work to that of a normal 2200 chessplayer, I know I lifted this out of context, but you are saying you are *not* normal, right? ----- In general, very interesting post. Thanks! --Steve
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.