Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Jorge Pichard

Date: 00:14:37 06/28/05

Go up one level in this thread


On June 28, 2005 at 02:04:27, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:

>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.


If you provide me instructions on how to make Smirf play under arena I will
match it against other Chess960 program, but so far it seems that Smirf only
plays under its own GUI.

Jorge



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.