Author: leonid
Date: 12:50:43 02/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2002 at 14:54:05, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >On February 02, 2002 at 09:24:40, leonid wrote: > >>On February 01, 2002 at 02:44:18, Mike Hood wrote: > >> >>Probably, every chess program should have one mate solver chained to its search >>for needed move. First work must be done by mate solver and only when mate not >>found, second part should be activated. Mate solver must look (my guess) 6 ply >>deep by brute force and later (if first search failed) 14 ply by selective. All >>search by mate solver must take 0.05 sec, or even less. So, enough time for >>second part of chess program to look for needed move, if mate is not found. >> >>By seeing efficency of brute force search done by Heiner's mate solver and speed >>of actual chips, I think that 4 move brute force search (before each move) is >>possible. Second selective search for mate could easily go as far as 8 moves. >>This way 1 move mate blunder will be impossible for ever in every program. >> >>Usually mate, in average game, is only between 2 and 5 moves deep. >> >>Leonid. >> >Hiarcs played the move becuase of a bug. Without the bug it would >have seen it of course. If it had a mate solver (btw, I don't believe >in using time for finding mates that in most cases the >ordinary search can find) there would be more code that could >be buggy :) Mate solver is, probably, the only part of chess program that can be perfect. Reason for this is clear winner move for mate position, or sure absence of it. This help in spotting all bugs in early stage of mate solver creation. Presence of perfect mate solver, inside of chess program, give to its chess program one additional chance to be bug free. I am surprised that until now all chess programs were done otherwise. Leonid. >Ralf
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.