Author: Albert Bertilsson
Date: 13:02:14 07/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2003 at 15:55:07, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >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 I agree that PST evaluation with Alpha-Beta and a transposition-table can play at least decent chess, but that's quite many powerful improvements over MiniMax with Material only. /Regards Albert
This page took 0.01 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.