Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 12:55:07 07/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2003 at 15:42:42, Albert Bertilsson wrote: >>Yes, but things are different with chess. In backgammon, you don't need to do >>deep searches. Backgammon is a randomized game, chess is not. There have been >>attempts, but not that succesful, i have looked at KnightCap, which uses >>standard minimax with a ANN to evaluate the quiet positions.It has a rating of >>about 2200 at FICS... pretty good, but no way near the top. I guess a program >>with minimax only counting material would have a rating near that. Like they >>say, chess is 99% Tactics. Nothing beats deeper searching. > >2200 on FICS with MiniMax counting material only? > >That is crazy! > >One of us is wrong, and hope it isn't me because I've spent many hours on my >engine and it still is now way near 2200 in anything other than Lightning! If >you're right I'm probably the worst chess programmer ever, or have missunderstod >your message completely. > >/Regards Albert Your engine, being new, still has a lot of bugs. I'm not trying to insult you; it took me a full year to get my transposition table right. At least, I think its right. Maybe. Anyway, the point is that it takes quite a while to get a good framework. I suspect on ICC a program with PST evaluation only could get 2200 blitz. (with material evaluation only it would play the opening horribly, e.g. Nc3-b1-c3-b1-c3 oh darn I lose my queen sort of stuff) Anthony
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.