Author: leonid
Date: 20:13:08 04/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2000 at 21:56:22, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On April 04, 2000 at 20:42:13, leonid wrote: > >>Tom, there are few very basic things that can say you the difference in >>expectation of which racing car could be the best. That car that have more horse >>power (raw power) in its engin. Later you can go about dynamics and all other >>billion details that can obscure or make even more prominent this basic >>advantage. In chess program it is the same. >> >>When in my "mate solving logic" I found that my "quick logic" give me wrong >>message, and my raw speed is not what it must be, I stayed still for two years >>with it. I left working on mate solver only when I found that I came to the >>place where I wanted to be. My intention is to do the same this time. Only now >>it is not that simple. I don't even know where I am right now. >> >>Leonid. > >That's why test suites and autoplayers exist. How does your program score on >WAC? BK? BT2xxx? etc. How does it score against GNU Chess? Crafty? etc. > >-Tom WAC, BK, BT2xxx - what it is? I can't say nothing about GNU, Crafty and so like since I don't know how to find their core logic speed when we speek about "positional move". If you speak about finding mate then mine should lead or be between the leading at least. When I tried my "raw speed" of "positional logic" against games such as Genius 4, Hiarcs 7.32 and Rebel 10 (if there are just no some extra mistakes that are all the time possible) mine begin loosing in time only starting with ply 10. Since I have the impression that mine loose around 8 or ten times speed before it reach 10 ply deep search (positional logic) I am so eager to know where mine goes wrong. NPS in some indirect way says that my numbers about general speed in positional logic is right. Leonid.
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.