Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 12:59:38 06/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2002 at 15:34:17, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >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! You mean write a program to write a chessprogram? Somehow I don't think we're approaching a solution here... :) >>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. I doubt it :) -S.
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.