Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 09:34:30 02/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2002 at 12:10:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Whatever it takes to survive. Better to defend and win than to attack >and lose... which is _very_ common against a few particular players on >ICC. > >Why open up both yourself _and_ your opponent and hope _you_ get the attack >going first? Humans are _better_ at analyzing such positions than any computer >program around. Playing right into their strength is incredibly dangerous... I consider it a challenge to make some nasty surpises for them when they try to play towards their strength :) So instead of avoiding stonewalls, I've added code to evaluate them. It doesn't always work of course, but it does generate stuff I'm proud of regularly. Especially if the opponent is one of those 'stupid' other programs that doesn't understand stonewall-like positions :) About the original point: I'm referring to that code specifically because it will really _hurt_ you in certain positions. Sometimes the right plan _is_ to attack, and it's not so uncommon to see Crafty just sit and get crushed at those times. I'm wondering if you've ever experimented with adding some code to automatically reduce that assymetry when playing a computer opponent or an opposite-sides castled position. -- GCP
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.