Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:11:18 01/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2003 at 23:54:29, scott farrell wrote: >On January 09, 2003 at 14:17:06, Stan Arts wrote: > >>Hello, >> >>I often read computerprograms are so bad at correspondence chess. That would >>make sence, since they run up a very steep wall after about 10-15 full moves of >>analysis. >> >>Wouldn´t it be possible however to write a program, that could spend it´s hours/ >>days of time for a move in a different way, searching much shorter, say just 5 >>minutes or less per move and then automaticly "play" (like in normal games) >>lines against itself to great depths, sometimes discovering refutations, and >>then disregarding this move and try to resolve other moves this way. >> >>So it would be sort of like replacing the human doing the analysis with computer >>help by another part of computer-code. >> >>Wouldn´t it be possible for the program to get to greater "depths" than it can >>in >>normal search? And find much deeper ideas and refutations like this? >> >>BUT, there are no programs doing this..so that would usually mean this idea >>doesn´t work. :) >> >>Why wouldn´t this work? >> >>Well, just a thought i have been having, >> >>Stan > >I think a different search could be employed. > >Mate solvers use different search techniques to standard engines. > >I think "singular extensions" might be useful in corro games. This is where one >move picked as being pretty good, and searched much more deeply than the rest. >This is in essense similar to your, "play the game" idea, but a little smarter. Singular extensions are used also for normal engines and are good for normal chess. The only reason that this is not implemented in movei is the fact that there are a lot od other things that I need to do and correct implementation of singular extensions did notcome to the top priority. programs that singular extensions are not productive for them simply do not use them correctly. I believe that the machines are fast enough so all the ideas that are good for correspondence chess may be good for normal chess at least in part of the cases. Uri
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.