Single Comment

Hi Mats, please have a look on that, what you have said. You are using such
names like 'central squares' or 'established chess laws'. But that kind
of arguing is just the problem. Why are central squares that important?
Where is the center in different chess960 games, where the king himself
might be decentralized? By that you learn, that such categories are
derived from more essential but abstract things. 

Another more transparent example are the average piece exchange values:
where do those traditional values come from? What is with that at
different variants? At my webpage you will find a simple theory to derive
such values even for unusual piece types or board sizes. As I tried to
tell you, I am not interested in that kind of chess knowledge, where it at
least leads to a simple implementing of a copycat behaviour. 

If you want to create an effective and INTELLIGENT chess program, you
first have to UNDERSTAND the basics of chess, not to imitate the so called
chess knowledge, which is moreover differing enormously depending on which
chess master you will ask. Then you will have to TRANSLATE it into the
world and language of a CPU.

Today there are a lot of effective but mostly huge chess programs. So
there is no urgent need for to write another one. But on the other side
there are very few intelligently working approaches using instead very
restricted means. I am arguing for to have computer chess program
tournaments with LIMITED means, especially targeting the persistant storage
size including the program executeable. They should be bound to a special
upper bound. And it should be measured in a packed form e.g. as RAR for to
skip inner redundancies as generated depending of the selected computer
language and to avoid the temptation to undergo any limits by including
packed knowledge.