Author: blass uri
Date: 00:30:37 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 1999 at 00:47:02, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On June 07, 1999 at 21:22:45, Mike Castañuela wrote: > >>On June 07, 1999 at 19:08:42, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >> >> >>>On June 07, 1999 at 16:41:56, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On June 07, 1999 at 16:35:24, blass uri wrote: >>>>[snip] >>>>>In part of these 7% of the cases(including your 3 examples) underpromotion is >>>>>needed only to win faster but is not important practically for the result of the >>>>>game. >>>>The same would be true of a program that takes a bishop to go up +3 instead of >>>>taking a rook to go up +5. Which program would you rather have? >>> >>>The one that knows how to get to the position where it can win either way. >>> >>>Dave >> >>But if one way (that can be unique to the victory path) >>of those all ways is not feasible, then what? >>Too, underpromotions weigh in esthetic terms, not only practical. > >If? Well, then you miss the win. Tough one. But how realistic is this "if"? >Not very. However, if accounting for underpromotions would slow down Junior by >a few percent in every game it plays, that's not an "if", that's a definite >relative penalty, in every single game. > >It's a chess engine. Aesthetics are for user interfaces, not engines. ;-) > >Dave I think that there is no reason to slow Junior down by a few percent to consider underpromotion. You can use 0.1% of your time to compare between search with underpromotion and without underpromotion and if there is a difference then to use an evaluation function that allow underpromotions. In this case you lose less than 0.1% of your time and I believe that you play slightly better. Uri
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.