Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: why don't chess engines simplify enough

Author: Ross Boyd

Date: 01:19:17 01/25/06

Go up one level in this thread


On January 25, 2006 at 01:34:54, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote:

>We learn early on that if we have a winning advantage, we want to eliminate any
>chance of counterplay by our openent. We usually would like to simplify the
>position.
>
>I've noticed that rybka and other engines often won't simplify the position , if
>there is the slightest loss of points (say -.1). So lets say black and white
>still have q's on the board, but black has a clearly winning advantage (+6). if
>black gets the chance, it should trade those queens (assume this really is a
>good idea).
>
>
>Are there any engines that will do this?, i.e., take a slight decrease in
>advantage to simplify the position and garuntee the win?

Hiarcs springs to mind.... it will occasionally throw away material to simplify
into an easy win. You will see this kind of behaviour in most engines that use
egtbs... ie. they will throw wood to get a tablebase win/mate.

In my engine I don't do anything to simplify (apart from the above)... although,
I have an idea in the pipeline which I call "waypoints" which is a type of late
middle-game recognizer code that will actively force the search towards easily
won endgames. It will be used mainly for hyper-aggressive endgame pruning. I
expect its play to appear stark raving mad to the trained eye - even though it
should still retain the win.

On the flip side, when its losing/defending it will doggedly try to keep the
game complicated, uncertain and in uncharted waters.

Well, that's the idea in theory...

Ross




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.