Author: John Lowe
Date: 14:14:30 12/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2002 at 09:44:05, Bob Durrett wrote: >On December 21, 2002 at 08:49:26, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 21, 2002 at 07:58:59, scott farrell wrote: >> >>>On December 21, 2002 at 01:48:41, Dana Turnmire wrote: >>> >>>Great thread. I am working on this sort of thing at the moment. I have been >>>trying to make it play GM moves, with lots of sacs, and positional trickery. >> >>I think that it is a mistake to try to do the same as humans because I believe >>that the assumption that GM's play better positional moves is wrong. >> >>There are also cases when there are a lot of positional moves that lead to >>almost the same evaluation. > >Perhaps "positional" test positions, in test suites, should give several >solutions with some solutions given more points than others. I vaguely recall a >chess book titled something like "Point Count Chess." The author gave the >reader the most points for finding the best move, but also awarded a few points >for lesser solutions. > >Maybe that should apply to chess engines too. An engine that doesn't >necessarily always find the very best move may still be able to play a decent >game of positional chess. Test suites aimed at measuring a chess engine's >prowess at positional chess perhaps should be multi-solution. > >Bob D. > >> >>If trying to learn to play moves of strong players is productive then >>I see no reason to try to play the moves of GM's and not to try to play the >>moves of the ssdf leaders(for example tiger's moves afainst ruffian). >> >>Uri I remember 'point count chess'. I was playing at computer chess programming when I had it. It seems to me that most programmers pay great respect to Nimzowitsch and "My system". Does anyone know of a better mentor for a chess program?
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.