Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 20:15:19 07/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 2001 at 22:44:25, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On July 31, 2001 at 21:57:27, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>r1r3k1/pp3p1p/3pbp1Q/4p3/4P3/3R1N2/1PPK1PPP/q6R b - - am Qxh1 Qa5+; bm Rxc2 >>Qxb2; id "Bob Kiviaho/CM8000 --> CCC July 27, 2001 at 15:59:52"; > >I can not answer the question in your subtject line. However, after I have >recently added some epd stuff to Yace, I am very confused about this line. I can >see am and bm. Still, a lot of other moves are possible (Yace thinks 39 moves). >So, what to do with a position, that has am and bm? I cannot think about >anything sensible. If only the bms are valid, the ams are just useless, and at >least confusing. If any other move than the ams are well, the bms don't make any >sense either. The am is what many programs will guess. In the case where a bm is supplied, they are not very important. However, you can think of them as a comment. It means "YES, I have considered these positions which many programs will choose, and these choices are clearly wrong choices." >After I have studied many postitions, I come (almost) to the cinclusion, that am >is of not much worth. I think, even a very long list of bms would make more >sense. So, if you have one move, that is clearly losing, I would find it more >appropriate, to list all legal moves besides the losing move as bm - even when >the list would get very long. I think, am can only make sense, when only this >move is losing. Having both am and bm: How should one estimate an engine, that >selects one of the am? The same for the legal moves, that are neiter am nor bm? I like having both am and bm. But I can see why you think they are redundant if any bm is supplied.
This page took 0.01 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.