Author: Ed Trice
Date: 11:46:13 08/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Martin, I thought that might be the case, I was just wondering if someone had worked out a means to finesse the selection criteria. What a bummer. On August 08, 2004 at 04:10:18, martin fierz wrote: >On August 07, 2004 at 20:21:49, Ed Trice wrote: > >>How much success has Dropout Expansion [Thomas Lincke] had in the domain of >>chess? Has any opening theory been overturned as a result of this? >> >>Are there any "Dropout Expansion Junkies" out there who have applied the >>technique to chess who might be willing to share their experiences? > >hi ed, > >as you probably know, i know tom, and i looked at his chess book once when he >was still working on it. at that time, it was pretty much no good at all. the >problem with chess is that you have many moves which are clearly absurd, but >which an engine will not rate as such - e.g. 1.h3 is not a horrible move at all, >but still nothing you would want to try... therefore, the drop-out-expander for >chess has to be extremely selective in order not to expand such moves, which >then in turn means that it misses all kinds of other things. > >an example: i remember we once thought it was a good idea to look at a dragon >variation like so: > >1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 >Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. Bb3 Rc8 11. O-O-O Ne5 12. h4 Nc4 13. Bxc4 Rxc4 and either >here, or 14. h5 Nxh5 here we started the expander, which found 15. g4 Nf6 so far >so good, a very well known dragon position: > >[D] 3q1rk1/pp1bppbp/3p1np1/8/2rNP1P1/2N1BP2/PPP4Q/2KR3R b - - 0 16 > >and now the main line went 16. Qh2? h5? and so on - the crafty version used (i >think 16.something) had no clue that after 16. Qh2? Rxc3! black is fine. it >scored this as about -1 for black, and because of the narrow limits on the book >expander, it never searched this line further... as i see, my fritz 7 is better >at this position, so of course it also depends on how good your engine is. > >for a game like checkers it works very well, because there really many moves >simply lose instantly and you can focus on the good moves. for chess this is not >true. i know tom continued his book expansion until he had a couple of million >moves (4 million IIRC), but i don't know whether it ever was any good! > >cheers > martin
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.