Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Crafty CCT6 notes

Author: Bob Durrett

Date: 17:24:07 02/04/04

Go up one level in this thread

On February 04, 2004 at 17:30:09, Bob Durrett wrote:

>On February 04, 2004 at 12:44:00, Randall Shane wrote:
>>On February 04, 2004 at 10:09:18, Bob Durrett wrote:
>>>On February 04, 2004 at 09:57:37, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>_any_ gambit starts off with you material down.  Do you still play 'em?  I
>>>>played the King's gambit, the Latvian, the Evans, the Goring, the Danish, you
>>>>name it.  And in every game I started off a pawn (or more) down.  :)
>>>Doesn't this mean that Crafty is improperly evaluating the positional factors in
>>Can any program properly evaluate the positional factors in gambits?
>>If the evaluation is absolutely perfect, after all, you wouldn't need search.
>Bob H., your logic is impeccable.  : )

Oops!  I meant to say: "Randall Shane, your logic is impeccable."  : )

Bob D.

>Not being a chess programmer, I cannot be aware of the special considerations
>and difficulties which may be involved.  Nevertheless, I do read chess books
>quite a bit.
>It seems to me, intuitively, that any improvements at all in ANY part of the
>software would be good things.  Motherhood, maybe, but surely reasonable.
>It seems logical that sacrificing a pawn for ***something*** would be a good
>idea if the value of that something were roughly equal [in practice] to the
>value of a pawn.  Presumably, that something would account at least in part for
>the success of the gambit.  [Note that the something would not be psychological
>advantage unless one is psyching out the programmer somehow.]
>I do not know whether or not any program can assess the value of the
>compensation for the material sacrificed, and maybe programming the evaluation
>code to do this is impractical or not feasible within reason.  If so, then it
>would not make sense to try.  On the other hand . . .
>Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that it is possible and suppose some
>brilliant ["Einstein-like"] programmer actually did that.  Surely, the resulting
>software would be no worse unless the code ate up a big chunk of the processor's
>Is there any FUNDAMENTAL reason why trying to do this would be a bad idea???
>Generally, I feel that chess engines smart enough to recognize positional [or
>other non-material] advantages and disadvantages would do a better job of
>determining which continuations to pursue during the searching.  [I speak not
>about the specific algorithms since I know not.  : )]
>Recall an argument I presented here awhile back.  Paul Morphy has been credited
>with recognizing the need to create the preconditions for an attack before
>committing to that attack.  [For example, having a preponderance of material in
>the vicinity of the enemy king.] Surely the position evaluation code can check
>for presence/absence of such preconditions and use that information to decide
>whether or not to look for attacking lines.  [Attacking moves may be different
>from "ordinary" moves.]
>Bob D.

This page took 0.07 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.