Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 13:14:11 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 07:51:33, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On December 18, 2002 at 23:08:13, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On December 18, 2002 at 22:40:20, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>On December 18, 2002 at 22:34:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>Here is the point. I will play you 100 games. And in _each_ game, at a >>>>place of my choice, I get to make two moves in a row. I believe I can win that >>>>match 100-0. >>> >>>Sounds like an interesting research project! >> >>It's not a research project, it's a chess variant. White gets a pawn on e2, a >>pawn on d2, and a king on e1. Black gets the full army. >> >>White gets to make two moves in a row each time, and the white king may move >>into check with the first move, but must leave check with the second move. >> >>I can usually beat someone with white a few times before they figure it out. >> >>It's pretty hard to mate white, it takes a lot of heavy material. >> >>But this doesn't have anything to do with null-move forward pruning. All that >>does is allow the program to say, "Am I still winning even if I pass my move?" >>If the answer to that question is "yes", then there is probably no reason to >>make a move, since the resulting position is almost always even *better*. >> >>bruce > >Bruce, you are wrong. > >Take a positional position, where a GM has exact knowledge that it is WON in the >long run IF NOT the program makes such and such. And now the clue: it could well >be that this is a position where your programs would ALL say I'm better or >almost won. I see that you still haven't understood the weak sides of computer >chess compared to human chess. Your long range chess sucks badly. Not that I >would be happy with it. (But it is clear that the best GM are able to ALWAYS >find a new trick to surprise the machine. It's ridiculous to assume that Kramnik >suffered badly after ChessBase tweaked the allegedly "horrible" possibility to >exchange Queens. Kramnik had hundreds of other weaknesses to exploit. But as I >read there will be a re-match, and a re-rematch, so?) > >Rolf Tueschen This is just a search technique that works. It has nothing to do with how well computers understand positional stuff. Add this to a program and it *tends* to prune out crap and keep good stuff, and general tactical performance increases. If you take a normal program and add null-move forward pruning to it, it will play better chess. bruce
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.