Author: Tony Werten
Date: 04:17:26 07/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2001 at 06:28:17, Iddo Bentov wrote: > >hello.. >your post is very interesting.... thanks very much for your reply.. > >your first ideas is simple and interesting.. exactly the kind we >were looking for.. we'll look into it.. if there is an article by >Don Beal we could look up.. it could help.. It might not. If it's the code I remember then nightmare is the proper description. It might be easier to reinvent than to decypher. cheers, Tony >i tried www search but >nothing much came up.. i wonder how important minimizing the number >of rules is.. and wonder what percent of correctness we should >expect from such a function.. e.g. for KP vs K and KR vs KN > >about wild7 (i play it on icc) and in general.. what sort of methods >can be used to solve a position whose minimax tree (with alpha-beta >and using hashtable etc) is still intractable..? it seems that for >wild7 patterns recognition could help? but in general.. are there >any interesting methods to solve positions? > >btw it seems that computer programs aren't good at wild7? at least >on my old p133 cpu.. is it because of null-moves ? i notice that >crafty on icc accepts many wild types.. but not wild7 > >also i'm interested to know, are there any chess positions that have >a known solution proved by humans, but none of the computer programs >can solve no matter how long they think? i think that in checkers >there is known opening (white doctor) where all computer programs >make the wrong move.. i wonder if it is always possible to create >a position that will trick all chess programs.. if such positions >exist in chess.. then i wonder what are such positions with the least >amount of pieces? > >any comments would be appreciated.... >thanks again....
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.