Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:13:55 08/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 1998 at 21:50:09, Serge Desmarais wrote: >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. > > > > I would sound better to me that the tartical engine would do a blunder check >on the positionnal engine's move! > >Serge Desmarais the problem with this is that the "blunder check" can't be done until *after* the positional engine has produced its move. Which probably means that the positional search gets 1/2 the time, the tactical search 1/2 the time. I'd bet that a single combined search produces better results almost *every* time.
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.