Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Question about static exchange evaluation

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 12:53:45 11/13/98

Go up one level in this thread

On November 13, 1998 at 11:19:19, Larry Coon wrote:

>On November 12, 1998 at 19:24:04, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>On November 12, 1998 at 16:47:22, Larry Coon wrote:
>>>Yeah, but I'd hate to spend a lot of time developing and
>>>benchmarking an approach that fails, only to find that
>>>there's a big, obvious drawback that I'd overlooked.
>>You are not going to like programming chess, if this kind of thing bothers you
>:-)  Sorry, I should have been a little more specific, since
>my professional life has had more than its share of researching
>approaches that are later found to be bad....
>Maybe I should have said that I hate being the *second* person
>to invent the Edsel....

This may actually be an excellent example, because unless I mis-remember, the
problem with the Edsel wasn't that it was a bad car, it was that nobody wanted
to buy it because it looked like, "a Cadillac sucking a lemon".

There are lots of techniques that some people use and a some other people have
decided don't work.  I think it's great to keep all of this old stuff in play,
since the result is what I think could accurately be termed cross-pollenation.

So by all means reinvent the wheel, see if it works, and if it does you can
either sit on it and an enjoy an advantage because everyone else thinks this
technique sucks and you know otherwise, or you can tell other people about it
and they can enjoy the benefits too, or they can try it and find that it still
sucks, for them, and maybe you both can gather some insights by figuring out

This is not just blue-sky, it really happens.


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.