Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:40:23 10/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 1999 at 20:23:28, Bruce Moreland wrote: [snip] >I argue strongly against this "playing style" method of determining program >originality, because I don't want to be at a tournament where someone >successfully uses this argument on the organizers. It is a bogus argument. You make a good point. Consider EPD test suites. Supposedly, once we have agreement on the right answer, all programs should get to the same conclusion. Typically, programs will get some high percentage of a test suite with the proposed correct answers. Since the tactical agreement is so high, and since most chess programs are mostly tactical, I would argue that most programs play rather similarly. Some things that change: 0. Faster time to ply. Quite likely both programs would arrive at the same answer if both completed the same ply at the same time but one just got there first. 1. Special extensions find a good move. Some programs may have extensions that others lack (piece exchange chain or whatever) and find something interesting. However, extensions will probably be the exception rather than the rule so they won't change the play much. 2. Small changes in piece value. That's one way you can change the 'personality' of a chess engine. Tell it to guard the king with enormous king safety, and it will be some cautions, defensive, slow playing fort-builder. 3. Different positional rules. If you add bonus values for control of the center, pawn formations, etc. it might play a bit differently than those that don't. I think making an engine play differently would be absurdly easy. The hard part of writing a good chess program is the data structures behind the shiny exterior and the fundamental algorithms to manipulate them.
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.