Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 16:43:43 07/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2003 at 16:17:37, Magoo wrote: >I said near, and when i say minimax, i really mean alphabeta (no one uses a >straightforward minimax). But you said minimax, and there was nothing else that you said to indicate that you meant alpha-beta. >When my engine was "born" (minimardi) it had only >material evaluation, searching 4 ply, it could play a decent game. Rated around >1700 blitz at FICS. Now, consider searching around 8 ply, i think a rating >2000 >is not hard to imagine. 300 ELO points is a lot, so I don't think it's valid to say, "I achieved 1700, so we can assume 2000." At one point my program had material only and alpha-beta and I could easiliy beat it almost every game, and I am nowhere close to 2000, or even 1700. All you have to do is focus on not getting nailed by a simple combination, hold on until the endgame, and the stupid program can't come close to seeing passed pawns until it's way too late, and you win. I even had material+mobility and alpha-beta with qsearch, and it was still a pushover. But YMMV. I agree that it is possible to create a strong program using a simple evaluation function, but you need to make use of a lot of the other enhancements such as transposition table, good move ordering, forward pruning, extentions/reductions, etc.
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.