Author: Robert Henry Durrett
Date: 12:34:17 06/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2002 at 13:47:15, Sune Fischer wrote: >On June 22, 2002 at 11:42:31, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >> >>Upon reflection on the subject, it seems to me that all successful chess engines >>would make extensive use of any and all techniques which could speed up the >>overall process. You might say "Time (clock cycles) is of the essence" in chess >>engines. I would expect the idea of using indicators would have widespread >>application in chess engines. >> >>Just as a fun thing to do, consider the possibility of indicators which would be >>solely for the purpose of deciding whether or not to initiate execution of more >>complicated "indicator" blocks of code. >> >>Bob D. > >I don't think there is a program not using it. >Extension, pruning, what and how much to evaluate, those are examples currently >in use in chessengines. > >But as my argument before showed, you need billions of code sections to handle >all the individual cases. >What you want is a actually an EGTB for all positions, and then a probe into the >evaluator. >The probing can be done more or less elegantly, but who should write all that >evaluation code? Let a specialized computer do it! >Only if we can extract common set of rules can we hope to evaluate a significant >subsection of those positions. > >Maybe it is not impossible, humans seem to be able to recognize some things very >fast. If you ever figure out how to implement that process, then please let me >know :) I promise. But don't wait for me! > >Think of the fortress positions, easy to see for a human, not so for a computer. >Are they important, well yes Smirin showed us that, but how do we evaluate it >staticly? Someone will figure it out. > >-S. Bob D.
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.