Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 08:16:01 06/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2002 at 10:33:39, GuyHaworth wrote: > >Typically, in the generation of an EGT, the 'draws' are those 'unbroken' >positions that have not been resolved as wins for one side or the other. > >'Draws' are not given a depth. > >However, 'draws' can be partitioned into 'draws requiring conversion' and 'the >rest'. Trivially, many draws require the material-down 'Black' to capture a >White piece immediately .. or some similar tactic. > >Such draws can be given a 'DTC' or 'DTZ' depth by a technique similar to the >technique used to find wins. This has not so far been done. > >Maybe this is relevant. The only application I can think of is to try to assign some degree of "difficulty" or "non-trivialness" to draws. But that would only help for "swindles", i.e. when one tries to give the opponent opportunities to do a mistake. Well, humans _do_ think that way, sometimes, so maybe there is something to gain here. I have no idea whether it could turn out to be important. Wait a second... it just occurs to me, that I could even use it in Chest... Some days ago Dann sent a feature request for Chest to me, asking to implement a draw recognition: instead of searching for a mate (win) searching for (and proving) a draw. My answer basically was "what is the depth of a draw?". What you describe may be (part of) the solution for this. Thanks! >g Cheers, Heiner
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.