Author: Pham Hong Nguyen
Date: 18:11:29 07/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 30, 2002 at 20:07:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 30, 2002 at 17:30:53, Ren Wu wrote: > >The strength of a game is also determined by how many professional >players a game has. We see it clearly in tennis and table tennis how >a sport from very amateuristic level has developed in a very professional >scene. This definitely is the case with chess. > >If i see how many nodes a second you get in chinese chess and see >the average number of possibilities (which in chess is 40 exactly >i measured with DIEP, not 35 like it is in human games), and the >huge influence of both scientists and other researchers in the >field then the facts are pretty easy. If you need some numbers to understand more about Chinese chess (CC), here you are: - CC has 7 kinds of pieces (King, Rook, Cannon, Knight, Pawn, Elephant, Bishop), 1 piece more than chess. Cannon is the most different piece in view of (western) chess. - The board of CC has 90 points, near 50% larger then chess board (64 squares). Fortunately, some pieces (like King, Bishop, Elephant) are limited in movements. - The main division number is 9 (not 8) because the size of Chess is 10 ranks, 9 columns. - The first position of Chinese chess board has 44 legal moves. - In general, opening and middle positions have around 38-48 moves. > >Let's be clear here. How many parallel running chinese chess programs >are there? > >If little, why? Especially if you consider the search depths they get, >for the top programs to play another top program, getting 2 ply more >is pretty interesting. > >Branching factor is determined by a few things > a) quality of the program > b) number of possibilities > >The go programmers at the mailing list always complain about branching >factor, yet my GO program has from the openings position a branching >factor of 10.0 > >Of course using nullmove. > >Yet they claim way higher branching factors. > >In chess we had a few years ago the same thing. Huge branching factors. >Now we have way smaller branching factors in chess, after years of >hard work. There is no doubt that Western science and technology have been going ahead East for many years. We are working hard to reduce the gaps between West and East. > >In all ways computerchess has developed itself very professional. Claiming >there is no such a gap between chess and Xiangqi is in itself a complete >denial of the facts. Do you mean chess or computer chess? BTW, it is likely you are comparing orange and apple. > >Let me show you one reason why many game developers in the east are suffering >from problems: > - not being able to speak english > >As a result of that i can't remember many serious papers regarding Xiangqi. >Please explain to me one algorithm that in generally works (both chess AND >Xiangqi are very similar, of course mating the king is completely different >in both games, so will extensions be here) for both games which has >been developed by a Xiangqi researcher? What is your point? > >I'm sure if i just look to hashtable management of the programs, i already >can directly find fixes for them. Simply not knowing cache line sizes >and such... You seems to be so pretentious. It is better if you go to work and help us on CC field then gain all top awards. East people will highly appreciate any contributions on CC.
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.