Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 16:21:38 02/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2002 at 14:36:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 20, 2002 at 14:23:13, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On February 20, 2002 at 13:38:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 20, 2002 at 13:05:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 20, 2002 at 12:11:25, Joshua Lee wrote: >>>> >>>>>I guess this is why Crafty has code for colle/stonewall?! >>>>> >>>>>I wonder how much time does it take Rebel to see it made losing moves, has >>>>>anyone looked at this? >>>> >>>>No program has code for that Joshua. A strategic concept is not >>>>programmable. >>> >>> >>>If you are talking about the Stonewall stuff, it is recognizable and >>>avoidable without a lot of work. Colle systems are the same if you use >>>the simple "don't block the c pawn with a knight" approach which lets you >>>avoid the more closed stuff... >> >>Do not confuse simple positional patterns with >>strategic concepts of the stonewall please. > >I'm not confusing a thing. Try to play the Stonewall against my program, >with you white, and establish the classic d4e3f4 pattern with Crafty castled >in front of that mess. > >it simply won't happen unless it happens while still in book. _that_ is what >I was talking about. What you don't understand very well, you can certainly >avoid... Still this is no solution. We talk about white having a plan which is derived from a structure. d4 e3 f4 in itself is no pattern. Secondly how do you cure it. if you give penalty for opponent having that pattern all a program is going to do it rape itself, like some progs do with the 8 pawns penalty. Might work great against humans in blitz. works disastreous against computers at slower levels. Best regards, Vincent
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.