Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:26:36 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 21:21:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 20:58:43, David Dahlem wrote: > >>On November 27, 2003 at 19:50:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 27, 2003 at 18:37:33, Matthias Gemuh wrote: >>> >>>>On November 27, 2003 at 18:15:34, Amir Ban wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Here is the List-Brutus game from 7th round. >>>>> >>>>>Can anyone get any crafty version with any setting to play List's 13. Be2 or 19. >>>>>Qd4 ? >>>>> >>>>>Amir >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>[Event "WCCC 11th"] >>>>>[Site "Graz"] >>>>>[Date "2003.11.26"] >>>>>[Round "7"] >>>>>[White "List"] >>>>>[Black "Brutus"] >>>>>[Result "1/2-1/2"] >>>>>[ECO "A00"] >>>>>[PlyCount "134"] >>>>>[EventDate "2003.??.??"] >>>>> >>>>>1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nxe4 Nd7 4. d4 Ngf6 5. Ng3 h5 6. Bd3 c5 7. Nf3 h4 8. >>>>>Ne2 h3 9. gxh3 a6 10. Ng5 cxd4 11. Nxd4 Nc5 12. Bc4 e6 13. Be2 Nfe4 14. Nxe4 >>>>>Nxe4 15. Qd3 f5 16. Nb3 Qf6 17. c3 Bd7 18. Be3 Bb5 19. Qd4 Bxe2 20. Qxf6 Nxf6 >>>>>21. Kxe2 Rxh3 22. Nd4 Kf7 23. Nf3 Kg8 24. Ng5 Rh6 25. Nf3 Rh5 26. Bd4 Nd5 27. >>>>>Be5 a5 28. Rhg1 Rh7 29. Rad1 Rc8 30. Rd4 Nb6 31. Bd6 Bxd6 32. Rxd6 Na4 33. Rd2 >>>>>b5 34. h4 Nb6 35. Kf1 b4 36. cxb4 axb4 37. Rd4 b3 38. axb3 Rh6 39. Kg2 Kf7 40. >>>>>Ra1 Nd5 41. Rc4 Rb8 42. Ne5+ Kg8 43. Ra7 Rxb3 44. Nf7 Rg6+ 45. Ng5 Rb8 46. Kf1 >>>>>Rf6 47. Rd4 Rg6 48. b3 Rh6 49. Kg2 Rg6 50. f3 Nf6 51. Re7 Nd5 52. Rxe6 Rxe6 53. >>>>>Nxe6 Rb5 54. Kf2 Kf7 55. Nf4 Nxf4 56. Rxf4 Rxb3 57. Rxf5+ Kg6 58. Rg5+ Kf6 59. >>>>>Rc5 Kg6 60. Rc6+ Kh5 61. Kg3 Rb1 62. Rc5+ Kg6 63. Re5 Kf6 64. Ra5 Kg6 65. Kg2 >>>>>Rb2+ 66. Kh3 Rb1 67. Rg5+ Kf6 1/2-1/2 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Hijacked code snippets do not kick in at every move. >>>>You certainly know that. >>>> >>>>/Matthias. >>> >>> >>>IMHO it would depend on "what was hijacked (if anything was)?" IE the >>>move generator is pretty "bland". It has to produce all moves in a given >>>position, and that is deterministic in behavior. The evaluation is way >>>different obviously and is one place where most of the "creativity" of >>>the programming effort goes. Grabbing part of that would be way outside >>>the bounds of reasonableness... >> >>In a post from the archives at >> >>http://www.chess-archive.com/ccc.php?art_id=270338 >> >>Dann Corbitt says this about the evaluation function of List... >> >>"I have seen the evaluation function, which uses separate lists for each piece >>type." >> >>Can you tell us if there could possibly be any relation between the evaluation >>of List and Crafty, based on Dann's statement? :-) >> >>Regards >>Dave > > >As I said, I am in an "information vacuum" here. I don't know _anything_ >about list at all. I was (above) responding to the idea of whether or not >it is reasonable to grab _any_ of an existing engine. If the answer is >"no" then how many are using egtb.cpp from Eugene? Since egtb.cpp is >deterministic in its behavior, I don't see it as a problem. I was pointing >out that _some_ parts of an engine will produce the same "result" no matter >who writes it (movgen for example). Other parts will not (the evaluation to >name one, but the search itself is something else too due to extensions). I think that the move generator is not going to generate the same result. My move generator generate only legal moves so it is different than your move generator. My move generator also give scores for all moves for move ordering(against different than other move generators because I am sure that even if other give scores they do not do it in the same way). Order of moves in the move generator is also not deterministic and can influence the program. 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.