Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 14:30:00 10/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 1998 at 16:01:30, Cristian Zaslo wrote:
>Yes, maybe I was wrong about Cyrus but I came to this conclusion based upon a
>few facts:
>1. A lot of chess problems were solved in the same way by all these programs
>2. Cyrus & Genius were written by the same author (no matches, as you said)
>3. All these programs (to my best knowledge) were top ZX chess programs, so they
>might share in common the same behavior.
>Anyway, my above statements are very unstable and I say once again maybe I was
>wrong about Cyrus’ structure. I posted those queries from a historical point of
>view, being almost sure that the theory of chess programming for very slow
>processors is a well-known thing and already out-dated
No, it is not. These were wonderful days, many ideas have been found at this
time, and we don't know which secret, for example, all Lang programs are still
hiding.
I have the impression that the basics of Genius algorithms were already settled
in very old programs. Maybe not in Cyrus, but already in the Amserdam, which was
written shortly after.
Today, null move seems good enough to achieve a good selection rate, so nobody
cares any more about finding something better. Well it is wrong. I try to find
something better, Don is trying too, and Ed has something that is already
better.
Torsten Czub has said one time that null move killed older algorithms. It's
wrong!
Christophe
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.