Author: Frank Schneider
Date: 11:39:13 06/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 1998 at 10:23:10, Don Dailey wrote: >On June 22, 1998 at 00:12:22, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On June 21, 1998 at 21:23:22, Don Dailey wrote: >> >>>On June 21, 1998 at 18:42:50, Amir Ban wrote: >>> >>>>On June 21, 1998 at 09:02:51, Frank Schneider wrote: >>>> >>>>>Has anybody tried the idea described below? >>>>> <snip> >I didn't consider 6. o-o. I don't really know what Frank had in >mind exactly but here is what rules I might consider on my first >attempt: > >Look at last 2 moves (one for each side) and compare it to some >candidate move we are considering. > >Look at all squares attacked by each of these 2 moves. Let sliders attack >through other non-pawn pieces too. If the candidate move attacks any of >these squares including any piece that just moved which should be >considered as part of the attack vector, then consider this move >as having passed the "Frank screening test." Hi Don, thanks for your help :-) I think your 'first attempt rules' are surely worth a try (they are much more sophisticated than what I do now). > >Using this definition then 6. O-O does not quite make it. But maybe >it should, it could in some position be part of a plan to play c3 >followed by Rd1 to oppose an enemy rook on the d file for instance. >This is why I like this stuff in principle, most reasonable plans >are very much like this, ganging up on squares, defending squares >etc. > >No one needs to post to explain the problems and plans this attempt >will miss, I see plenty of them, but I don't necessarily think this >makes the idea worthless. And if someone experienced that the idea is worthless I would be very interested in it, because it saves me the time to make this experiences myself. And I did not only post the idea, but also first testresults that show that the heuristic doesn't fail on tactical tests, although the implementation was quite simple. Frank > >- Don > > >>>You mentioned that the real goal was to get the most reliable >>>evaluation which I agree with. I believe (in the spirit of >>>what Frank is trying to do) this is quite consistant with that >>>goal. Whether it works or can be made to work is an open >>>question (at least to me) but it may be that your intuition >>>on this is stronger. I cannot dismiss it yet without taking >>>a closer look. >>> >>>This stuff is VERY similar to some stuff one of our team members >>>is experimenting with. We get a nice node reduction for free, >>>but the implementation reduces our nodes per second drastically. >>>Our experiences with this gives me reason to believe something >>>like what Frank is experimenting with has a chance to pay off. >>> >>>I definitely agree with you on the test suites. My experience >>>has been that they have no value at all for evaluating how good >>>the chess program is, but I use them quite extensively >>>because they have a lot of value for evaluating the behavior >>>of various algorithms. When it comes time to really find out >>>if some change really improves the program, other methods must >>>be used. I have this idea that a few of the programmers use >>>problem sets to evaluate their programs since it is by far the >>>simplest thing to do and I believe this may be a serious mistake. >>> >>>- Don
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.