Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: The correlation between Standard and Chess960 is not parallel

Author: Reinhard Scharnagl

Date: 23:04:27 06/27/05

Go up one level in this thread


On June 27, 2005 at 21:58:51, Jorge Pichard wrote:

>Just because a program is strong at standard chess doesn't mean that it will be
>strong at Chess960. For instance there is a noticeable difference between
>standard Pharaon 3.3 and Standard Freenze, whereas according to my test,
>FRC-Freenze is almost equal in strength to Chess960 Pharaon 3.3.

This is not at all surprising to me. It reflects the unability of most engines
to UNDERSTAND positional implications during opening. This will be covered in
traditional chess by a) opening libraries, b) optimized weights in piece type
specific coordinate related bonus/malus tables.

Smirf is avoiding the use of such tables to force the programmer (in that case:
me) to improve the program to a better positional understanding by AVOIDING
such intelligence murdering piece-coordinate 'optimized' tables, and of course
by switching from huge looking-up tables corrupted chess to Chess960's freedom.

I am sorry about the fact, that Smirf's growing abilities are tested nearly by
nobody. Some feed back could be very helpful.

Reinhard.



This page took 0.01 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.