giovanni wrote:Thanks, Rodolfo, for your detailed answer. I need to study it a bit , but I am glad that you are back to computer chess, because I found this thread really a fascinating one.
Whenever you get the chance, could you make a case study of using Stockfish PA GTB, possibly using a real word example for chess players? May be that providing a few examples will inspire people to continue with this project or start a fresh one along the same line.
Thanks again.
Giovanni
I'll study Stockfish PA GTB better, but I think programmers already know everything about it. Those who still don't know, can easily understand how it works. When the search for little ELO and speed ups will stop a bit, I guess all about PHs will become a bit more interesting.
Anyway, if I can produce some interesting results with the system, I'll report it. It could be like a match Stockfish PA GTB vs. AsmFish, with a selective opening book for SF. Let us see.
hgm wrote:
The problem is that IMO writing engines for orthodox Chess is a complete waste of time. There are already thousands of those, and no one needs another one (if it is not significantly stronger than Stockfish). So I prefer to spend my time on engines for games where there is a real demand.
I wish more people had your attitude. do you think your program has a resonable chance of beating stockfish/komodo. if not there must be plenty of other ways you can contribute to computer chess besides elo.
perhaps you can list a couple of areas of investigation that remains to be done.?
, but I am glad that you are back to computer chess, because I found this thread really a fascinating one.
