Author: Omid David
Date: 12:39:36 10/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2002 at 15:17:45, Joachim Rang wrote: >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"). The fact that you are a newbie doesn't have anything to do with this case. Your reasoning was completely correct. I'm telling you, there *is* a way to detect blockades with 100% accuracy, i.e. there might be blockades in which it doesn't detect and that's fine (you'll do regular search), but it *never* announces draw wrongfully. It *can* be done, for I have done it, and I believe most of the programmers here (including Vincent, if he thinks a little before announcing it "impossible") can do 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.