Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 10:48:35 11/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 1999 at 23:21:24, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 19, 1999 at 18:13:31, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>On November 19, 1999 at 13:23:46, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On November 19, 1999 at 03:08:35, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Do I have a defective disc or is Nimzo 7.32 a defective program in this >>>>>>>>area? Or have I missed something? >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>There is no contradiction. >>>>>you do not lose more than few elo ratings by not knowing KBN vs K and KBB vs K >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>This is the typical bean counters argument: Rating points. >>>>You do not lose more than a few rating points by not knowing this and that, >>>>so what you get is kind of a cripple chess with some nice features like the >>>>insufficient material feature. >>>>I want a chess program to be able to play chess in *any* possible position. >>>>Every thing else is poor. I don't mind about rating points in computer chess. >>>>Kind regards >>>>Bernhard >>> >>>The programs are generalists, and that is the problem. There are some specific >>>cases they do not handle well. KBN vs K in particular requires an extra >>>heuristic in order to perform well. In a normal endgame position you will not >>>try to force the opposing king to the corner that is the same color as the >>>bishop, but this bit of information is extremely important in KBN vs K. >>> >>>So unless you program some extra help in, a program will play that ending >>>sub-optimally. >>> >>>There are always going to be positions that the program doesn't understand as >>>well as a person, since it is different from a person. >>> >>>You are right to demand that specific rare yet interesting cases be covered, >>>though. >>> >>>This probably applies just as well in the middlegame. Computers play their type >>>of game very well, and this is sufficient to do well in most middlegames, but >>>there is obviously a lot of room for improvement. >>> >>>bruce >> >>I think I have said this time and again, but here I go again: why not to develop >>more "fragmented" programs, that is to say, not a full program supposed to do >>well in any aspect of the game, but one with a specific module to identify what >>is going on and then select another specific module to treat it? I presume >>something of he sort is currently done, but I suspect that a lot more can be >>done. In fact, is what human beings does: we does not play chess with the same >>package of ideas in the middle of ending, with this or that set of remaining >>pieces. In our case is unconscious, we just change our parameters and to begin >>with, pawns becomes a lot more important, the kind becomes ative, etc, but a >>program could do so provided the super-module had a complete -or almost- table >>of pattern positions to identify what is needed. >>Cheers >>fernando > > >This is done exactly in the way you describe in many chess programs already. > >For example Tiger does not use the same search algorithm in the middlegame and >in the endgame. Of course the evaluation is also totally different. And other >programs do that also. > > > Christophe Then take a look at what Bob said to "my" idea and continue the discussion with him, interpares as you are in programming. 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.