Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 08:23:56 06/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2003 at 11:07:38, Uri Blass wrote: >>But nevermind the titles, that's just boring hairsplitting anyway. >> >>I think FRC is increasing its popularity, also now with the Leko-Svidler match, >>and I like it because it solves some problems (book problems!) > > >I do not think that the book problem is very important and top programs can do >well even without opening book. It is possible you are mistaken about that. I certainly know my engine has lost games because of bad opening lines. >If you want to solve book problems than shuffle chess is enough and you do not >need FRC. You can, and it is better than nothing I guess. But as a chessplayer myself I must say that shuffle doesn't appeal to me at all, that's like a kids game. You also see the superGMs play FRC and not shuffle. > and takes a more >>generic approach to the game. >> >>For instance I don't like hardwired patterns, say a bishop trapped on a7 with a >>pawn on b6 and c7. > >I also do not like it. > > If I were to add this to my engine I would do it in such a >>way, that a wider range of trapped bishop cases were detected, which naturally >>included that cases. > >I beleive that doing it in that way is more productive for chess programs and >has nothing to do with FRC. It helps me to think in the right way, because this way I can never tell what the patterns will look like. I think it forces one to be imaginative and addapt the engine for more varied play. I do sense that the difficulties of FRC are being blown a bit out of proportion, there are things 100 times harder to do in a chess engine. Unless of course one has actually made the engine full of hardwired patterns, then it's going to be a big change, but I suspect the change will be productive in the long run also for regular chess. -S. >Uri
This page took 0.02 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.