Author: Alessio Iacovoni
Date: 05:32:42 08/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 1998 at 08:20:03, Alessio Iacovoni wrote: >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. By the way it would be a very easy way of offering updates to existing chess programs.. the program could change substantially (improving it's strength against human players, changing style, playing more agressively, etc.. just by changing two digit numbers associated to the list of positional items).
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.