Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 12:17:45 10/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2002 at 14:39:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 04, 2002 at 14:34:46, Joachim Rang wrote: > >>On October 04, 2002 at 14:21:16, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On October 04, 2002 at 11:48:06, Omid David wrote: >>> >>>How many times must i say the same thing? >>> >>>Suppose i have 200 patterns to adjust my score. >>> >>>Now 1 pattern can undo all those 200 patterns. >>> >>>I'm then either an idiot then to have those 200 patterns, >>>or to use that one pattern, if it is in 50% of the cases wrong. >>>Even if it is in 80% of the cases right :) >> >>I can't understand what you are trying to say. >>Suppose you have 200 patterns and add another drawing-detection pattern a la >>Omid. This 201st pattern overrides the 200 other patterns if certain >>circumstances are met (which means in certain positions). The pattern does not >>change any evaluation if certain circumstances aren't met. Suppose you can >>describe the circumstances correctly, the drawing pattern overrides the 200 >>other patterns only in the correct positions. The other 200 patterns you need >>for the other positions. >> >>regards >> >>Joachim > >You still think chess is like mathetmatics, so > 1 = 1 > >and > > 2 = 2 > >then whey aren't there engines playing perfect chess? yes you may be right, I'm quite a newbie in computer chess and a weak player too. But why are you angry at me, instead of telling me, where I don't see the point (which should be a bit more concrete than "you are to stupid to understand it"). If I understand you correctly you doubt that there is a way to detect such draws 100% correctly. Okay I'm not an expert in this area you may be right. > >> > >>>>On October 04, 2002 at 11:34:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 04, 2002 at 11:26:51, Omid David wrote: >>>>> >>>>>slowing down the search is not the problem. the problem i >>>>>explained in email to sargon >>>> >>>>So I assume the problem is that it's not 100% reliable, and may return >>>>inaccurate estimates. Right? >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On October 04, 2002 at 11:22:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 04, 2002 at 10:34:43, Omid David wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>had fritz implemented such a scheme it would play 300 points weaker >>>>>>>anyway. >>>>>> >>>>>>It depends on how you implement it without slowing down the search >>>>>>significantly, and that's what I'm currently working on... >>>>>> >>>>>>It's obvious that applying the whole heuristic on each and every node is too >>>>>>expensive. But a wise application of it, could detect many draws without any >>>>>>significant impact on the total speed. >>>>>> >>>>>>Omid. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Just today we had a discussion regarding the importance of blockade draw >>>>>>>>detections http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?255950 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Had Fritz implemented such a scheme, it wouldn't have stepped into the drawing >>>>>>>>variation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>My engine instantly announced draw based on its blocked-draw detection >>>>>>>>heuristic. While Fritz never realized the draw... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Omid.
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.