Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 02:07:01 11/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2002 at 03:15:15, Frank Schneider wrote: >On November 16, 2002 at 22:08:55, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On November 16, 2002 at 22:00:27, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>> >>>I was thinking it might be *fun* to create a machine which does nothing more >>>than create legal move sequences from some preset legal chess position. These >>>sequences might be dumped into a large part of RAM for later copy to a hard disk >>>or printout. >>> >>>The key idea I'm toying with is to represent a chess position by a listing of >>>legal moves. Whenever a new move is made [by the person (or thing) playing >>>against the machine, or by the machine if it's playing against itself,] then the >>>machine would do nothing more than modify that listing (plus copy the move >>>representation to a temporary storage place in RAM). The new listing of legal >>>moves would then represent the new position. The key idea is to represent a >>>position by a listing of legal moves. When a move is made, there is a "from" >>>square and a "to" square. Only consequences of changes made on these two >>>squares would have to be considered to modify the legal move list. >>> >>>Then, to make it more interesting, a really fast random number generator would >>>be used to select one of the resulting legal moves. If the machine were playing >>>against itself, the sequences of moves should be generated very quickly. How >>>quickly? >>> >>>In the beginning, I am only interested in the time it would take to modify that >>>listing. The machine could play both sides, removing the need for >>>time-consuming input/output. After generating a legal move sequence ending in >>>mate, it would then start working on the next legal move sequence. After a >>>million or so moves were made, then the time required could be divided by the >>>number of moves. That resulting time per move that I'm asking about. Rather >>>than worry about the fact that some computers are faster than others, maybe the >>>best bet would be to express it as number of clock cycles per move. A modern >>>high-end processor should be assumed. >>> >>>Each sequence would be what two "really dumb" chessplayers would produce if they >>>knew how to produce legal moves but knew NOTHING at all else about chess. >>> >>>P.S. Is there a better way? >>> >>>Bob D. >> >> >> >>Don't you need to prove first that two different chess positions will always >>have a different legal moves list? > >Hi Bob, > >there are many different positions with the same move list, e.g. >all stalemate-positions, all positions where e.g. Ke1xqf2 is the >only legal move, ... > >Frank He knows that. He wasn't asking the question for his own benefit. > >> And that there exist no move list that could >>be associated with two different chess positions? >> >> >> >> Christophe
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.