Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:17:27 11/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2003 at 01:47:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 28, 2003 at 01:26:36, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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. > > >So. We are doing it _differently_. But I _only_ pay attention to legal >moves. > >> >>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). > > >Same way or not, the point was that generating moves for a position is a >static task with a fixed and finite output. That is different from an >evaluation that has a lot of the "author" encoded there... > > > >> >>Order of moves in the move generator is also not deterministic and can influence >>the program. > >not normal alpha/beta. also with normal alpha beta. If there are 2 moves that gives the same score then order of move can influence the program's move. But that's not the point here... Efficiency is >not the issue. IE if you need to find a bit in a word, should you learn >how to write your own asm function, or use mine that already works? I'd >say use mine. You _do_ use a random number generator you didn't write, >correct? correct but I do not use asm functions in my code. I agree that some parts should be allowed to be copied and the main question is what parts List author was accused of copying. I understood that the problem was also in 4.60 so it cannot be book because 4.60 had no book. I have no idea what it was. 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.