Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 10:18:06 07/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 2005 at 21:38:58, Lin Harper wrote: > > > Hi Djordje, > In addition to the interesting info in this thread, there are just a couple >of things I would like to add. > In the case of search depth versus knowledge, you quite rightly pointed out >that search depth *is* knowledge. Since the basic problem of a chess programmer >is correct allocation of limited processing capacity, perhaps in the case of >Fruit2.1, the programmer has succeeded in his effort to include only vital, not >unnecessary knowledge, so that the released capacity has driven the search >another ply, or at least part of a ply. This applies to Shredder too, of course. > I remember some time ago the author of Hiarcs saying that he had vastly >increased the knowledge in his new version. This could only have come at the >expense of search depth, and so was a mistake. > Just one other point re: Fruit2.1. I could'nt help notice that Fruit2.1 has a >preference for knights over bishops. This I noticed over a series of too many >games played on Arena for it to be random. I'm only guessing, but could it be >that the knight, handled correctly, is a stronger piece overall than a bishop? >And that this has not been recognized in the chess community until now simply >because it has been impossible to search deep enough to demonstrate? Food for >thought. > all the best > Lin Hi Lin, nice to hear from you, as always. Yes, Fruit might be the currently optimal way to conduct search, perhaps even more so than any other program. I guess that Fabien will have to modify it a little to make it even stronger. Alas, there may be a rub there, as any addition to the optimal search is dangerous and may upset the overall strength. Chess System Tal comes to my mind as the knowledge-laden program that had promise. However, it appears now that only increased depth and better search point the way to go. CST would be decimated in its match with Fruit, as, unfortunately, is the case with any knowledgeable program, no matter how attractive its playing style may be. Simulating human chess knowledge is not the way chess programming should go, it slows down the search so much so that such programs overlook some important tactics. I have noticed Fruit's preference of knights over bishops too, as well as its occasional tendency to sac a light piece for a couple of passer pawns. I have also noticed that it undervalues rooks... These could be interesting pointers for Fabien... Thanks. Djordje
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.