Author: Alessio Iacovoni
Date: 05:20:03 08/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 1998 at 07:32:07, Ilya P. Kozachenko wrote: > >On August 28, 1998 at 03:02:02, Alessio Iacovoni wrote: > >>On August 28, 1998 at 01:18:14, Jeff Anderson wrote: >> >>> >>>> >>>> Another point is that 2 engines running simultaneously could receive only 50% >>>>of the CPU time each (or so) and so the tactical engine would not reach the same >>>>depth as if it was running alone (at least one full ply of even more shorter) >>>>and so, the evaluation of BOTH programs would be less reliable? Like when you >>>>make one engine play another in Fritz 5, they are both weaker than when running >>>>alone. >>>> >>>> >>>>Serge Desmarais >>> >>>Well as Mr. Iacovoni suggested, this would require two processors. >>>Jeff >> >> >>By the way Jeff.. i'm not a programmer but I just read an article on the thread >>of alt.computers.chess concerning "hsu" and deep blue... apparently his strategy >>seems very similar... all of the moves are passed to a "unit" of some sort >>before beeing played. The article is not very clear on what this "unit" actually >>does. So my idea is not that original.. but at least tha fact that hsu is >>working in the same direction does show that, at least to some extent, my idea >>is not to stupid. > >BTW, how you would decide, which move - produced by tactical or positional >engine - it's better to select ? >It was the point, when discussing of the same idea I posted, finished. Ok... the tactical engine comes up with it's best line which it believes will give it a +0.60. The line (say 10 plies) are passed on to the positional "blunder check" engine which determins if that line would bring to a postional weakness.. (doubled pawns for example).. if it would, then it subtracts the - value of doubled paws (I dont know how much) from the positive value of the tactical engine (+0.60 - 0.60 for example = 0 so the line is not satisfactory). The process is repeated as many times as possible untill a line is found which will reach the highest overall value (tactical and strategical). The coefficients could be weighted in such a way as to give more importance to the tactics (I would give tactical value at least 50% more importance than position... but that has to be decided with trial and error).... In such a way very strong tactical lines would pass even though they receive a negative value from the blunder check module (a checkmate +99.9 for example would pass regardless of the - value attributed by the blunder check module). It seems very simple to me.
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.