Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:58:11 08/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2003 at 11:55:31, Steven Edwards wrote: >On August 22, 2003 at 11:40:19, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On August 22, 2003 at 11:38:08, Steven Edwards wrote: >> >>>On August 22, 2003 at 11:29:20, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On August 22, 2003 at 10:54:17, Steven Edwards wrote: >>>> >>>>>BUT, the above mentioned Paradise chess program pulls out the mate PV with a >>>>>search tree containing only 109 nodes. It solves many other tactical puzzles >>>>>with similarly small search trees. >>>> >>>>BTW, Paradise was not a chessprogram. It was a matesolver. >>> >>>Wrong. >>> >>>Paradise could pick a move for any position. Its intended domain was for >>>tactical searches, including both mates and material wins. >> >>CHEST can probably pick moves for any position too (if not, it's an easy >>modification). >> >>That doesn't make it a chessprogram. > >If a program can play chess, then it is a chess progam. > >>As you just said, it was meant for tactical (and specifically mate) searches, >>not for playing games. > >No, in the original paper, only one example (WCSAC #398) is a forced mate. All >the other searches are for material gain. I tend to believe that there are problems of material gain that it may fail. The program was never released and from selective choice of positions we cannot say that it is better in tactics. Uri
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.