Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:14:32 12/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2002 at 14:41:25, Bob Durrett wrote: >Dann's comments below about closed positions are very interesting. > >Perhaps it is possible to write a chess engine, or a subprogram within a chess >engine, to excel at solving closed positions, even if the engine cannot "become >aware of" the fact that the position being examined is "closed." On the other >hand, if a specialized "closed positions" subprogram were to be called, then it >would be necessary for the program to "know" when to call that subprogram. > >There seems to be a tradeoff between the size of a program [measured in lines of >source code???] versus the number of specialized subprograms contained in the >overall chess engine program. Hypothetically, there could be hundreds or >millions of specialized subprograms, one for each different kind of chess >position. But that would be impractical, of course. Crafty, at about 40,000 >lines of source code, is surely about as big as anyone "in their right mind" >would want their chess engine to be. [Maybe 40,000 is too much too!! : ) ] The problem is not one of recognition. Several programs can recognize closed positions. The problem is what to do about it. WAC.230 is a typical case. Most programs have no idea that it is an approximate draw. Those that do, rarely know how to solve it. There are a couple programs now that can actually solve it and without absurd passed pawn bonuses, so there may be some progress in this area. The anticomputer chess site addresses some of these sorts of things.
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.