Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: What approach do you use to handle castling/en passant for repetition?

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 15:26:44 03/01/00

Go up one level in this thread

On March 01, 2000 at 14:31:40, blass uri wrote:

>On March 01, 2000 at 12:31:52, Peter Kappler wrote:
>>On March 01, 2000 at 05:19:38, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>>On February 29, 2000 at 17:56:25, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>I asked you to back up your argument and you gave me some random numbers. Now
>>>>>you are asking me if I need confirmation that divide-by-zero is bad. It's no
>>>>>secret that you are being extremely insulting to me.
>>>>Tom...  look at _your_ response.  A curt "run some tests and prove I am wrong."
>>>>My position is "you run some test and prove you are right."  I already gave one
>>>Scientific papers do not look like this:
>>>"Electrons are green. If you don't agree, prove me wrong."
>>>You told me that ignoring the EP square is a big mistake. But your argument is
>>>like the "scientific paper" above. (See the text I quoted.)
>>I must disagree here.  He told you about a specific incident where this caused a
>>problem in Crafty.  Why do you keep insisting that he offer more proof?
>>If you feel so strongly about this, conduct your own experiments to prove Bob
>The question is not if ignoring the EP square can cause problems but what is the
>probability that it practically cause problems in games
>There is no doubt that it can cause problems but if it cause problems only in 1
>out of 10000 games then saying that it is a big mistake to ignore EP square is
>wrong and using the same time to fix other problems in programs is more
>important for rating.
>If it can cause problems in 1 out of 20 games then saying that it is a big
>mistake is right.
>The point is not that Tom claims that Bob is wrong but the fact that Bob did
>not give data about the practical question.
>It is possible to get a good estimate for the relevant probability by dividing
>the number of games when ignoring the EP square caused problems by the number of
>total relevant games

The data would be difficult to obtain.  Who would want to play games with a
known bug, just to see how many games it screwed up?  Who would want to go
thru each of those games, move by move, to see where the EP problem actually
influenced a score vs when it didn't?

Lot of work, zero return.  For bugs this simple, just fix them and go on.

It takes a couple of lines of code.

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.