Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Endgame Knowledge

Author: Tord Romstad

Date: 09:15:47 04/08/04

Go up one level in this thread


On April 08, 2004 at 05:48:01, Uri Blass wrote:

>On April 08, 2004 at 05:23:33, Tord Romstad wrote:
>
>>On April 08, 2004 at 01:02:42, Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>  Importance of endgame knowledge has been time and again discussed here.
>>>But it is quiet frustrating for a chess patzer like me to implement this in the
>>>engine - much more if I attempt to do this effectively.
>>
>>I agree entirely.  Adding endgame knowledge is very difficult, especially if you
>>want to
>>keep the code general rather than writing huge amounts of code for dozens of
>>different
>>special cases.
>
>
>I think that it is dependent on the knowledge that you have.
>based on the game it seems that it not very difficult in the relevant case to
>get significant improvement for Mridul's program.

Possibly.  I didn't study the game.

>  And if you give up and start writing code for all sorts of
>>special cases, you
>>face the ugly problem of evaluation discontinuities when pieces are exchanged.
>
>It dependent on what you write.
>
>You can decide to write code only for clear cases when you can get win,draw,loss
>by evaluation and in this case I do not see the problem of discontinuities.

Yes, but then you will only help your program understand very basic endgames.

>>Not only the eval, but also the search is difficult in the endgame.  All the
>>well-known
>>selective search techniques seem to fail miserably in the endgame.
>
>I found that for me verified null move pruning helped in the endgame and today I
>use it only in the endgame when normal null move pruning is used in the middle
>game.

For me, verified null move pruning does not help in any phase of the game.

>I think that the right selective search can help more in the endgame then in the
>middle game.

Very possible, but I still find it hard to do.

>The point is that programmers usually care more about the middle game because
>the middle game is more important.

You might be right that programmers usually care more about the middle game, but
I don't agree that the middle game is more important.  From what I can see, a
very high
fraction of comp-comp games are decided in the endgame.

Tord



This page took 0.02 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.