Author: Tony Werten
Date: 04:58:38 07/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2001 at 07:29:05, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 29, 2001 at 05:44:27, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On July 28, 2001 at 18:47:21, Ron Murawski wrote: >> >>> >>>I have implemented a pin bitboard for king-pinned >>>pieces and it has helped the strength of my program. >>>My question is: Is it worthwhile to identify ALL >>>pinned pieces? >> >>Ignore all. It is not a starting engine issue. You'll be adjusting it every time >>you make some changes. >> >>The state you're engine is at now you should leave it up to quiescence to >>determine wether a piece can or cannot capture. >> >>Thre is lots of basic stuff you still have to solve. Don't go into details to >>early. TSCP and Gerbil are examples showing that just doing the basics but doing >>it good still gives a strong program. >> >>cheers, >> >>Tony > >I think that it is better to think on your own algorithms and not copying >algorithms from other people. > >I do not see the point of doing another strong program like everyone. > >I think that a significant progress in computer chess may be possible by >thinking about different algorithms and the fact that almost everyone try to >copy algorithms from other people is not productive for getting the progress. > >The problem is that the known way to develop chess programs was investigated too >much so if you start a different way you can expect that your program is going >to be weaker not because the different way is worse but because of the fact that >the different way was not investigated and you have nobody to copy from. > >I believe that evaluating pinned pieces may help (I read that people found that >this knowledge does not help much in the evaluation but I think that the main >advantage of it may be not in the evaluation but in the search because it may >help to get better order of moves or to know better which lines to extend(for >example it may be a good idea to search first a move that is attacking a pinned >piece and not a move that is attacking another piece). > >I do not say it from my experience of developing a chess program because I still >do not have a chess program and only a move generator. That's basicly what I meant. You can't experiment with new ideas if you don't have a decent playing program. Otherwise your results don't say anything about your ideas, just about the gaps in the program. cheers, Tony > >Uri
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.