Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:47:57 01/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2004 at 13:55:06, David H. McClain wrote: >> >>>Robert when a program has a three move repetition problem in the code, is this >>>different than when a program that cannot see that +4 should be -2 because >>>position is too deep to see true score? >>> >>>kburcham >>> >> >>No, you are taking my comment too literally. The repetition bug is one >>issue. Evaluation bugs also lose games. Search bugs lose games. Poor >>evaluation loses games. Poor extensions lose games. There are thousands >>of ways to turn +5 into -Mate... >> > >Dr. Hyatt, > >some basic questions: > >How do you fix this or is it a case of "If I knew I'd have the best program in >the world?" Would any attempts at correcting deficiencies entail playing >hundreds if not thousands of games? I don't believe it can be fixed perfectly, until a chess program can play perfect chess. That isn't going to happen within my lifetime for sure, and I'd be willing to bet on "never" but I won't be around long enough to collect on that bet. :) > >And another: Can the user of a prgram find alternative methods by his own input >regarding better parameters and opening books to overcome program deficiencies >in certain areas? I don't know. Most of the things I fix are things that I watched happen on the chess servers. I know my search is not going to see certain types of very deep perpetual draws, and I just don't worry about them at the moment. > >What are "extensions" > Search extensions, that attempt to guide the search deeper along those paths where tactics are important, such as the deep perpetual check I was mentioning... >DHM
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.