Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 13:40:04 10/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2002 at 15:39:36, Omid David wrote: So you are declaring that months of work of me some years ago is completely stupidly done because you can do it 'perfect' like the EGTBs can do it? >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.