Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:51:36 02/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2002 at 20:42:27, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 20, 2002 at 15:38:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 20, 2002 at 15:20:44, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >> >>>On February 20, 2002 at 14:32:25, Terry McCracken 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. >>>> >>>>Mr. Diepeeven, c'mon Dr. Hyatt knows what he's talking about....he's been >>>>programming for some 30 years! >>> >>>Vincent was talking about chess, not about programming. >>>Then again, both were talking about different things, one about avoiding >>>the opening, the other how to play it. >>> >>>Miguel >>> >> >>Correct. And it is possible to do both, of course. A computer doesn't > >this is 2x wrong. Loek didn't use a 'stonewall' pattern. He used >a strategy. He would not have needed a pawn on d4 e3 f4 to get this >idea. He just had an idea. saying a pattern X sucks means a program >will dislike it for his opponent too, so it likes to take it for >the opposite side. First, I didn't say he used a stonewall. Someone else brought up the stonewall idea and I mentioned that it is _solvable_. Second, just because a program doesn't like the stonewall as black does _not_ mean that it will like it as white, although that is not a particularly bad thing... > >Saying f4 e3 d4 is bad for black means it will like it for white. > Not necessarily. At least not in my code... >this is a major problem. each medal has its >bad side. > >secondly it's impossible to put all moves i can play as a human >in opening into your book when i play for a certain idea. > >your book can never have 10^40 positions of course. That is why I chose to not solve it via the book, but from some eval terms instead. > > > >>necessarily have to understand something as clearly as a human does in order >>to cope with it effectively, something that is often overlooked. But it >>does have to understand it in some sort of way or it will get bombed of course. >> >>I used to spend a lot of time tweaking my book to avoid the zillion different >>ways to transpose into the Stonewall. I now no longer even think about it as >>it simply doesn't come up. > > > >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>Terry
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.