Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:57:03 10/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 2003 at 15:36:22, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > >You misinterpreted me. > >On October 03, 2003 at 14:51:24, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 03, 2003 at 13:38:54, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>> I was a bit taken aback by these declarations : >>> >>>On October 03, 2003 at 12:47:23, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>I prefer even not to care about using hash tables for pruning because my >>>>experience told me that I cannot get significant gain there easily >>> >>>Hash table not giving you pruning ? I suspect a bug in your hashkey - >>>nothingelse. >>>Or maybe it is the easily that is operative word ? >>>I think there are a lot of open source programs that you can refer to and >>>correct your bugs with - crafty , GNUChess , etc , etc. >>>Might help to get this right. >> >>I do not like to copy from other sources. >>I found that instability helped me to do my program significantly better. >> >>If I delete it in order to be able to copy from other programs then I may need >>to start by doing it significantly weaker. >> > >I did not mean - "copy" here. >Rome was not built in a day. What I meant is : >Look at their implementation - check yours. Find any obvious bugs. >I seriously suspect that there are - since hashtables not only help in pruning , >but massively help in move ordering. I already use them for that purpose. I did not say that hash tables are not used. >If you can afford to make these statements - then your impl is horribly full of >bugs. > >As far as "instability helping" - I'm really not sure what you mean by this. As >far as I know - everyone , including me , tries to reduce instability so that >search is more stable requiring minimal search tree. >Wild extensions , unstable pruning , etc may help you in solving test suites >better and faster - but in real world games , it will suck badly. I test also in games. > > >>> >>> >>>>(I have a lot >>>>of stuff that means that pruning or extension is not defined only by the >>>>position). >>> >>>Where ever possible , I try to make the search behaviour as relevent to the >>>current position as possible and not rely on past search. >>>Why do you want to do the opposite ? >> >>because the opposite gives me some advantages. > >test , test , test - dont assume. >like my collegue says : When you AssUMe , you make an Ass of U and Me ;) I test. > >>Movei has its chances against every program inspite of having bad order of moves >>and bad extensions and bad pruning. >> > >acceptance is the first step to improvement ! > >>I believe that I can get above Crafty level if I improve order of move >>extensions,pruning and evaluation. >> >>Movei already has its chances against Crafty but today crafty is significantly >>better. >> >>There is a lot to improve and the main problem is programming. >> >>Uri > > >AFAIK movei is not smp - so no point in saying search here :) >SO , other than move ordering , eval and pruning : what else is left ? interface >code ? ;) code. I do not plan to use smp and I believe that the things that I mentioned can give a lot. >anyone can get to crafty level or higher - IF you are willing to put in the >effort and scientifically research. >All the best - wishing to see a better Movei and a more scientific Uri :) You misinterpt me. I did not decide that something is better based only on test positions. Uri
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.