Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:02:23 01/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2004 at 16:08:06, robert flesher wrote: >THe question being how hard is this problem to fix for the the author? Trivial. But again, "fix" is not the right word. "Change" is better. And the question he has already answered is that he prefers this way, which apparently plays better in most positions in his opinion. IE my very simple q-search could be improved (maybe) by adding checks. But I made that decision and am not unhappy with it as it does bring along some advantages. Many things in computer chess are based on pure compromise. It wins in some cases and loses in others. Hopefully it either wins in more cases than it loses, or it wins in the more common cases, even though it dies in some constructed problems... Very rarely do you get to do things _perfectly_. The computational cost is usually simply too high to bear... So you compromise, and sometimes hold your breath as a "critical" position shows up OTB. :)
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.