Author: maria clara benedicto
Date: 21:33:50 04/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
why not invent a chess program can do gambit? rogram which take chances. nways, question = to chance it or not. is gambit tiger like this? just wondering.... regards maria clara benedicto On April 30, 2002 at 13:39:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 30, 2002 at 12:21:13, Joe McCarro wrote: > >>On April 29, 2002 at 21:35:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 29, 2002 at 18:12:17, Keith Ian Price wrote: >>> >>>>On April 29, 2002 at 15:49:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 29, 2002 at 14:01:23, Joe McCarro wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>If I were playing someone over the board and they seemed to give me a >>>>>>possibility to play Bxa1 snatching the rook I would think long and hard before >>>>>>doing that. I'd figure as long as this isn't a trap I will win the game. Let me >>>>>>take my time to just make sure its not a trap. I wonder if this couldn't be >>>>>>programmed in. Anytime the other player makes what on the surface appears to be >>>>>>a blunder (e.g., drops over a pawn) the computer could spend extra time working >>>>>>out the position before moving. If it ended up it was in fact just a blunder >>>>>>presumably the computer should still be able to win despite the extra time spent >>>>>>looking for the tactical shot. If it found it wan't a blunder the computer >>>>>>might avoid taking the poison. Do the programmers do anything like this? Would >>>>>>this in fact be helpful or would it have disadvantages as well? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>There are two choices here: >>>>> >>>>>1. They made a blunder hanging the rook. >>>>> >>>>>2. after due consideration your opponent decided that either the rook could >>>>>not be saved, or it could not be captured without exposing you to lots of >>>>>difficulties. >>>>> >>>>>In choosing which of the above is true, you would need to know your opponent >>>>>and his FIDE/whatever chess rating... >>>> >>>>Not really. If your opponent were a Patzer the extra time won't hurt. Your >>>>program will still beat him. If he were a GM, you could assume case number two, >>>>and it would be wise to take a longer look. So the choice that benefits either >>>>way is to take a longer look. The question is--How much longer? >>>> >>>>kp >>> >>> >>>None unless the score is dropping steadily. Then you might have a problem. >> >>Does the score always drop steadily or does it sometimes drop quickly once >>somethign is seen? >>BTW thanks for all the great responses. It seems Steffen Jakob has been >>employing the reasoning I suggest one of his programs. > > >It happens _both_ ways. Sometimes it takes a specific depth to see the roof >fall in and give you a chance to change to another move. Other times it >just gets worse and worse as your engine goes deeper and deeper, because it >is slowly seeing "the truth" bit by bit.. > >The first case is easier to handle, the latter is not. DB had something >cute in it to detect the latter case better than I ever did and think longer >even when it wasn't apparent that something bad was happening right at that >instant...
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.