Author: Will Singleton
Date: 06:57:33 11/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 2003 at 02:49:50, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 03, 2003 at 00:02:37, Will Singleton wrote: > >>On November 02, 2003 at 22:14:29, Koundinya Veluri wrote: >> >>>On November 02, 2003 at 17:12:38, Will Singleton wrote: >>> >>>>Sure, but I'm not sure CT was referring to finding the mate as the problem. CT >>>>seems to have some problem understanding that KQK is better than KQKP, that's >>>>all I can figure. >>> >>>King of Kings has a problem with this because it thinks that it can keep white >>>from promoting and at the same time promote its own pawn, according to eval. So >>>it keeps checking for a while and eventually should capture the pawn, but since >>>it considers a position drawn if repeated even once, it might end up drawing the >>>game. >>> >>>Koundinya >> >>I know most programs do this, but I'm not sure why. > >The reasons are clear: > >1)It is more simple to do it in that way >2)You probably need months of testing to find the productive way of doing it in >a different way(I am talking about productive way for playing strength) > >A possible problem is that your program may waste too much time in a won >position so it may draw by the 50 move rule. > >Another possible problem is that your evaluation may be wrong and it may be >better to have 1.99 without repetition and not 2.00 with repetition because >2.00 when the leaf position is repetition means that you made no progress and >you need to find a different plan and later you may be unable to play your >different plan because the opponent may be able to claim draw by 3 time >repetition. > > >Note that I did not understand what do you do exactly when there is 2 times >repetition. I ignore it. If there is depth remaining, I continue. > >1)Do you continue to search normally or return static evaluation? >2)What do you return if you have to return a value(for example you are in a leaf >position). > >I think that returning the static evaluation is a bad idea and I guess that some >value between the static evaluation and 0 is better but I decided that it is not >important enough to test it. > >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.