Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:53:18 07/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2002 at 23:39:33, Russell Reagan wrote: >On July 16, 2002 at 20:31:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I thought Uri said "corner squares". Which is more dangerous than "corner >>squares on the enemy side of the board". But even then there are probably ways >>to exploit a program that thinks a knight on a8 is really bad... > >I think there must be a superior method than assigning values to squares like >this. By this method, a strong player would pick the program apart. If a more >general method was found, there wouldn't be the need to patch up our programs >with exception after exception. Surely piece square tables are not the best >we've got? > >Russell Here you are _badly_ wrong. If you look at my "trojan" code, particularly early versions, a couple of players found ways to beat me _still_. Crafty would not take the knight/bishop because of the big penalty. But they found ways to offer it _two_ pieces (one commonly a rook) and that was larger than my penalty and here I went again. If you do something coarse and obvious, like black knight at a1/h1 = -1.0 or whatever, humans _will_ learn about it. And they _will_ exploit it if possible... It has happened to me. I have seen it happen to _every_ program playing on ICC, be it commercial or amateur...
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.