Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 23:43:29 09/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2003 at 01:00:37, Paul Byrne wrote: >I read the thread on the pawn game last night... >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?316441 > >...and added it as a variant to Guildenstern (which is pretty basic >as chess engines go, but is set up to handle rules variations like >this -- first version took about 10 minutes). The first version >called it a win when a pawn hit the 7th rank; changing this to >getting a passed pawn more advanced than the opponent's most advanced >pawn (passed or not) caused a speedup of about 100x in solving the >couple of test positions I was using. Yes, that should result in some nice pruning :) >I'm sure a program set up especially to solve this would be noticably >faster (no need for code for castling, promotion, non-pawn moves, etc, etc) That doesn't slow down my program very much, so I'd not expect a big increase in removing it. There are other parts though, like SEE that could be greatly simplified in this game. >and running on a faster machine than my 1.2 GHz athlon would gain a ply or >two. >Adding a better eval function would likely aid move ordering some, accounting >for the symmetry of the initial position would help, etc. There are plenty >of ways to improve on my basic program. > >I have to suspect the game is solvable -- perhaps not quickly, but not in a >totally unreasonable about of time. It also depends on what the solution is. If the game is a forced win for white it could be a lot faster than proving it is a draw. -S. >-paul
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.