Author: Johan Hutting
Date: 11:04:00 12/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2002 at 10:46:08, Sune Fischer wrote: >On December 11, 2002 at 10:00:38, Johan Hutting wrote: > >>On December 11, 2002 at 07:44:43, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>Chess is primarily tactics, >> >>Vincent does have a point, to get into a position where you can use those >>tactics you require positional knowledge. Any 1600+ rated player can tell you >>that :) > >Vincent was arguing a different point. I agree with him that it would be hard to >write a top level program with only 2000 lines of code, but I don't believe it >is impossible. Not impossible, but it would require perfect tuning. Problem is the computers speeding up every year would make the engines with more knowledge catch up in search depth fast. > >I'm pretty sure there is still room for improvement in the area of search. hopefully there is :) >And probably evaluation is secondary to search in 95% of the cases. I don't agree. 95% is a _lot_. See Gerbil for an example of stable search, few eval. >>My guess is Uri uses a very simple patzer eval with big bonusses for good pieces >>along with a fast search. So far it makes movei play good, but if you wish to >>improve you'll run into a wall. > >I think you can write a lot of important eval in 2000 lines. >The basic pawn structure and king safety issues can be done in 2000 lines. Yes, but beating the top programs with that? Good luck :) >>>if you have near _optimal_ extensions and near >>>_optimal_ pruning rules, then you could probably get those extra plies on your >>>opponent and could win WCCC using tactics. >> >>but, with a bigger eval and good pruning you will still search the promising >>lines deeper, right? > >Of course, but you also see eval hurting at times, no rules without excepton as >they say. For instance the trapped bishop codes are often wrong, Bxa2 b3 a5! and >maybe we have time to free the bishop here or can simply protect it with Ra8 or >Qb2... hmmm, that could only happen at high depths. Once the capture comes near to the root the engine wil see a7-a5-a4 of course. > >Not a whole lot of things are easy to staticly evaluate, only simple patterns >like isolated double pawns can be relatively safely scored, IMO. True, but that is the main problem of a small evaluation. >>>My guess is that Fritz would still be mighty strong even if they had to limit >>>their eval to 2000 lines. >> >>It would be outplayed by more positional programs and perhaps score some 'lucky' >>wins. But that's in 'slow' tempo games, blitz is another matter. > >With basic eval I wouldn't fear any program that I outsearched two plies in the >midgame, I'll remind you of that when the rewrite of my eval is done :) > endgame is another matter as the tactics is often few and far between. yes, especially in rook and pawn endgames, good evaluation is a must.
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.