Author: Tony Werten
Date: 21:43:51 03/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2005 at 16:47:20, F. Huber wrote: >On March 30, 2005 at 15:06:25, Tony Werten wrote: > >... >>My point was that you mention "automatic mode" and then start mentioning what >>you have all disabled based on your impression of the position. Not really >>"automatic" . IMO the engine should realise those things by itself, or else you >>might just as well give it the pv. >> >>But I guess you already got that ;) >> >>Cheers, >>Tony > >Of course I know, what you mean! :) > >And for your "Not really ´automatic´. IMO the engine should realise those things >by itself": >Well, I wrote ´automatic mode´, but not ´intelligent mode´! ;-) >If I would know a method to let ChestUCI adjust itself all those available >settings, I would have programmed it this way - but maybe YOU can help me!? ;-) > >BTW, why has really _every_ chess engine several options, which can (and must!) >be set by the user? Such options wouldn´t be necessary at all, if the engine >could "realise those things by itself". But it seems, that nobody has found >a good method to implement true intelligence into a chess engine yet - >maybe YOU have (?) ... :-) I think most cases could be handled. The problem is that there are so many cases. I'm not sure what the 2 parameters mean in Chest, but it seems they are material dependent. I suppose you still generate all moves but do extensions on checks and (mate)threats ? How about fractional extensions based on material on the board ? So that fe with little material on the board the first threat isn't extended but only the 2nd ? Or more general: Count the amount of special moves, and when a threshhold is reached treat the last move as a check. Do you use static mate detection ? In a program like Chest this might help a lot. Cheers, Tony > >Best regards, >Franz.
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.