Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 07:58:35 09/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 1998 at 17:30:37, James Long wrote: >On September 27, 1998 at 14:32:27, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >> >>Why not a program with a kind of device similar to that to decide where the >>action is and then use the necessary modules for the rest of the job? By >>example, if the position calls for tactics, then he would uses only the >>algorithms oriented to tactics, maybe with full width searching, etc. But then >>if an strategic approach is necessary in the queen side, he drops the tactic >>part of the engine and concentrates all his speed in evaluating strategic >>parameters such as pwan races, etc. >>Of course some mix should be made: maybe after strategic consideration a quick >>look for eventual tactics would be ever necessary to avoid mishaps. But I do not >>want to enter in details about this because i suspect that this has already >>invented or rejected. Could a programmer tell me about this? Did I pick a good >>idea or just I picked an unfeasible one? >>fernando > >I think that's what's called "Shannon Type B." These types of programs >selectively search only a few moves. I think most programs prune to >a certain degree, but any way you look at it you're taking a huge >risk. > >For example, how do you *know* a strategic approach is necessary without >looking for tactical blunders? I just don't see any way around doing >a tactical search (as you pointed out). You can (semi) safely omit >large portions of the positional factors of an evaluation, however. > >Isn't CSTal a selective searcher? I'd like to hear more about this >engine if anybody has some info. > >-- >James Hi james: No, selective seach and Shannon B does not involves neccesarily what I propose. Prunning and selection is done on the ground of scores that were got after full or partial use of the code source. Respect to tactical blunders, OK, there is always a chance, but then you should consider that is the risky way even strongest human play. When you propose an idea -this or any other- I have observed there is an inclination to refute it on the implicit base that any kind of searching method should be perfect, so if mistakes and shortcoming appears, the all idea is rejected. But there is non a perfect method, including the current one. I suppose the way to look at this is NOT to try the discovery of a magical system that make impossible mistakes, but one that will make possible better moves in most of the cases. In pther words: i would prefer a program that plays like Ruben Fine and make tactical mistakes that even Fine could commit to a program that not commit tactical mistakes but is not capable of playing like Fine. Fernando
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.