Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:24:15 05/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 1998 at 18:03:33, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>
>
>
>Air mail Special for Thosrten:
>In relation with what has been said here in order to strengthen CSTAL in
>such a manner as giving him the capability to win won games that
>sometimes he loses, let me call your attention to page 8 of the old book
>“More Chess and Computers” by David Levy and Monroe Newborn. There you
>an read:
>
>"...Cheops would be used by an improved version of the Greenblat program
>-Machack- in the following way: whenever the program reached a position
>it considered strategically satisfactory, Cheops would take a look at
>the further tactical possibilities. This enables the program to avoid
>numerous traps...”
>
>Levy played two games against this comb in 1978 and won both, but this
>Janus-kind of monster did pretty well considering the level of chess
>computer in those days. So, this is a somewhat old approach that
>probably was abandoned somewhere in the road when stronger computers and
>programs appeared and the hope to get it all with one engine simply
>vanished the idea of a combined entity. But now we know better. I wonder
>if Chris, in the meantime he develops a new CSTAL engine capable of
>transforming himself according to situation, could not produce a comb as
>a transient experiment. I am sure he can put in code in half a week at
>least a reasonably strong conventional chess engine to do the work
>Cheops did for Machack. I believe that not even a top notch engine is
>necessary for this testing of tactical lines in complex positions. I
>intend to do myself the experiment giving to a old program like Fritz 1
>the winning positions CSTAL did not win.
>Ciao
>Fernando
Interesting experiment.
Let us know about the results. I love facts.
Christophe
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.