Author: Rafael Andrist
Date: 22:54:19 06/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 2002 at 18:28:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On June 03, 2002 at 09:04:16, Heiner Marxen wrote: > >Thanks for your kind reply Heiner, > >PN search is a very interesting way to search, yet >it is a very childish form to search with compared to CNS >search. See some papers from Ulf Lorenz. > >Only kids toy with PN search. > >CNS search is more interesting as you can involve other >situations. > >I hope you appreciate my approach that i do not >waste more of my time to this thread than referring to Ulf. > >My only comment is to make some concrete implementation and >face the problems instead of discussion for 20 years something >which is not going to happen. > >Ulf made P.Conners. From all the thousands of people who >guess you can solve parts of the game tree of chess by some weird >approach he is the only guy who actually *made* something that >works. Initially, Heiner was talking about an 2 piece EGTB approach for special situations. And that is something that works, since I have already implemented this for certain types of positions some months ago (not yet for perpetual check). regards Rafael B. Andrist
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.