Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 12:17:30 12/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2002 at 13:50:50, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 20, 2002 at 11:49:17, Jonathan Lee wrote: > >Without going into discussion about words, the only >interesting thing is pseudo code here. > >You can invent great things, but it is the pseudo code which >describes how it practically works. <snip> Yes indeed! After all, this is a programming group. [not that I would understand your pseudo code] But, Jonathan, even if you have not yet coded your idea, perhaps you could elaborate a bit? Otherwise, all the gurus will tell you "Oh, we figured that out years ago!" It's easy for them to say that if you don't pin down your ideas. I find the word "dynamic" to be exciting! It seems to imply an uncommon adaptability to conditions encountered by the engine. Something about the engine changes "in a big way" in real time to adapt to the new conditions. In contrast, "static" seems to be ploddish adherence to "doing things the way they've always been done." Static programs would not be adaptable, IMHO. What is it that is dynamic? The coding? The algorithms? The engine’s general approach to the game? Different algorithms for different kinds of positions? In addition to the differences between endgame positions and middlegame positions, one could consider chess positions to be of several or many types. Each type might be evaluated best by a different engine. If a single engine were to be able to adapt, chameleon-like, then maybe the engine would play better. Best wishes, Bob D.
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.