Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence in Computer Chess - *DETAILS* as promised

Author: Dave Gomboc

Date: 22:11:41 03/29/04

Go up one level in this thread

On March 29, 2004 at 06:25:28, martin fierz wrote:

>without knowing too well: i don't think phoenix is a very good chess program. i
>would take schaeffer's statement on this with a grain of salt. many things that
>are true for one program are not true for other programs. i would tend to be
>more interested in experiments done by authors of really strong programs.

Phoenix tied for first in the 1986 WCCC, and of the four tied entrants, Phoenix
had the weakest hardware.  By 2004 standards, of course Phoenix isn't a good
chess program, but back when it was competing it was quite reasonable.

It's certainly possible to argue that with today's hardware and software
improvements, the history heuristic is no longer a win.  This can be done
without disparaging the strength of Phoenix relative to its competitors, though.
 IIRC, the history heuristic was an important contribution within Schaeffer's
(1986) Ph.D. thesis -- which would not have been the case if the technique
wasn't an improvement on what was known at the time.

I think many people would be interested in experiments done by authors of very
strong current programs, but those seem to be in short supply...


This page took 0.01 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.