Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 10:39:00 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 1999 at 12:48:26, KarinsDad wrote: >On June 07, 1999 at 19:26:13, Marc Plum wrote: > >[snip] >> >>Seems to me that this misses the point. >> >>Underpromotions are part of the game of chess, although admittedly a fairly >>minor one. I don't like a programmer rewriting the rules of the game for his >>own convenience, even if, hypothetically, his program will be more successful as >>a result. > >Sorry about the other empty post. I have no clue what happened there (must have >hit the submit button somehow). > >I agree with Marc. Underpromotions ARE important JUST because they are a rule of >the game. One does not drop rules from the game just because they probably are >not needed in a significant percentage of games. > >Playing without underpromotions (for one side in this case) is not playing >chess. It is playing variant chess. > >If one computer program knows that another program does not underpromote (and >this is REALLY writing your code to take advantage of other programs), it could >prune it's legal move engine (the search portion for opponent's moves, not the >the program's own moves) more in order to not check the underpromotions. That >gives it an advantage in creating a smaller (a teeny tiny bit) tree. > >Now, of course, this is a silly example, but it shows that all chess rules >should be taken into account by the programs. > >KarinsDad :) It's not silly at all. Nimzo already has an "anti-Junior". Dave
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.