Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 16:26:32 09/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 1999 at 08:04:59, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: >Laurence, > >reread his original post. I think you didn't get the very good point he was >making. > >--Tec Hi Georg: Well, no so quite, although perhaps Laurence did not use the exact words. The key of CSTAL II -and I- nasty attacks is not just a code to launch attacks at any cost, but it seems to me that it uses a code where the weight is not in optimal moves according traditional evaluation methods, but in using the most tricky moves, those that has a wider range of potential mistakes for the opponent to make. This is like to say it does not use -not fully, at least- the minimax approach, but something a bit different. Instead of prefering wich node gives the less-good-better- move available, prefer the node that gives the maximal number of awful moves to do for the oponnent, although with some restrictions in order not to fall himself in a killing line. Nevertheless, that is recisely what happens to CTAL from time to time. And this is what precisely our friend here is asking and looking for, if I am not enterily mistaken. cheers Fernando
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.