Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 01:51:27 09/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2003 at 04:25:17, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On September 21, 2003 at 04:07:39, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On September 21, 2003 at 03:59:04, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >> >>>Another reason I don't like BB's is it is just an accident that it is a good fit >>>with western chess e.g. when you complete your BB program, try converting it to >>>play Shogi (9x9 board) or Chinese chess (9x10 board). BTW, I know other >>>approaches have the same problem too, so I also have the same concern about >>>them. >> >>I think that there is some contradiction in what you ask for. >> >>I believe the more game specific an engine is, the more potential it has. >>This goes for board structure, move ordering, pruning, extensions and >>evaluation, everything. > > >But are you being more game specific than you need to be? There is no question >you are right to a certain degree, but I don't agree that you should chuck >portability out the window either. Well, whether you need to rewrite 95% or 100% doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. Maybe mailbox will give you an advantage, many of the tricks should carry over fairly straigt forward. I think it's a big rewrite in any case. >It is by no means clear to me that BB's are more efficient than other >approaches, while those other approaches are more adaptable to other games in a >efficient way. I would prefer to retain the option as much as *reasonably* >possible. It's clear to me BB are more efficient that all other approaches ;-) Seriously, I think it would be foolish not to take advantage of the 8x8 board being a power of two in all directions, this is native talk to the machines. That the board also happens to have 64 squares in total is just an observation I cannot overlook, such incredible luck comes once in a lifetime :) -S.
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.