Author: Albert Silver
Date: 07:50:16 01/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2000 at 09:51:26, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>On January 21, 2000 at 09:33:22, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>I don't think there is any doubt. But it will likely be at _least_ another
>>10 years and probably longer.
>
>You said earlier that the DB team discovered glaring holes in the evaluation
>functions of PC programs. Glaring enough that a seriously retarded version of DB
>could still whomp on them.
>
>So my question is, why doesn't FHH make a PC program with this ueber-function?
>It wouldn't be much work for him, and the cost is zero. Okay, it would run
>significantly slower in software than it does in hardware, but if the function
>is THAT much better, it would still be a win. He could throw in null move and
>probably achieve partiy.
>
>I think this is a real no-brainer, and the only reason he hasn't done it already
>is possibly because the evaluation function isn't all that it's cracked up to
>be.
>
>-Tom
It could also be that the 'patches' for the eval function would be to taxing on
a PC system. How expensive would certain things like the x-ray effect of pieces
be? You know, lining up a rook-rook-queen battery behind pieces and pawns for
devastating effect, or pawn-bishop-queen. I once proposed this to a programmer,
suggesting values for who controlled a square through this battery effect (even
though the piece at the end would be quite a distance from the controlled
square). The idea was to speed up certain tactics this way, and the positional
understanding of the program on who had better square/space control. When I was
told this was too costly, I realized that systems that had super hardware
offered possibilities one could only dream of with PCs. I have no doubt that DB
probably had MANY such dreams implemented.
Albert Silver
This page took 0.01 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.