Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:48:58 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2002 at 00:12:09, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 19, 2002 at 16:19:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 19, 2002 at 12:54:47, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On April 19, 2002 at 12:31:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>This is wrong thinking. If it will play the right move for the wrong reason, >>>>then in similar positions it will play the _wrong_ move for the wrong reason, >>>>and lose. >>>> >>>>All you have to do is add a simple endgame rule that says _always_ centralize >>>>the king to see why this happens. Then give your opponent a passed pawn on >>>>the edge of the board and see how much that king in the center helps. The >>>>idea is that centralizing is not the right idea. The right idea is to get the >>>>king to wherevere it is needed, whether that is the edge, the corner, or the >>>>center. Just moving it to the center will be right in plenty of positions. >>>>But it will be wrong in enough to make it obvious, too... >>> >>>Good example. Having the king in the center in the endgame is an excellent >>>rule. It will be right much more than it will be wrong. You'll easily see >>>a significant different in playing strength when comparing programs with or >>>without this rule. >> >>OK... I will play your program and all it can use is "centralize the king". >> >>Care to bet on how endgames are going to turn out? Hint: I _won't_ be >>making passers in the center. That is a weakness that can easily be exploited >>once it is spotted. It might work fine in most _random_ positions. But I am >>not going to give your program random positions. I'm going to give it positions >>where I know it will screw up. And it will. Over and over and over. >> >>That is why it won't work... > >Knowing to centralize the king is better than knowing nothing about the king's >square. Under what circumstances? If I know you use that, then against me whether you use it or not will not influence game outcomes at all, because against me it is not going to come up. > >If your program does not care about the square of the king in endgame I am going >to get a passed pawn in the side that the opponent king is not there >and beat it. I believe that was my point. However, when you "know about the square of the king" you had better know about pawn majorities also, otherwise you will make the _same_ mistake... > >If your program knows to centralize the king then it has better chance to find >the right move by search because the distance between the right square and the >centre is smaller. > >Uri This is not about search. This is about knowledge. Positions that happen near the tips can't be resolved by search. You have to depend on the evaluation to come up with the right answer. If it doesn't you get fooled, after you have already committed to that plan. You give a human IM/GM that kind of hole in your evaluation, they will drive thru it over and over and over...
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.