Author: Fabien Letouzey
Date: 02:02:28 03/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 12, 2004 at 02:04:31, Uri Blass wrote: >I understand but I try to explain what is the reason that fruit get good >results inspite of having almost no evaluation(it has only piece square table >and few boolean features and has for example no king safety evaluation and no >endgame knowledge) Maybe we should wait for more time before claiming any "good results". They are not apparent at all to me. Any pointer? >The fact that based on the results that I read if you add to fruit book it seems >to be only something like 100 elo weaker than Crafty is surprising and suggest >that something should be improved in the search of Crafty. Where does this estimate come from? I haven't tested matches against Crafty because I considered it a loss of time (on my computer); to me Crafty is obviously at the very least 200 elo points stronger. >Maybe you need to do other changes in the search before ETC works for you(for >examples checks in the first ply of the qsearch and changing that are done by >fruit and changing R=2/3 to R=3 after having checks in the first ply of the >qsearch). Uri, Read Crafty's main.c (yes you have done so, so read it again). Bob has tried all that, and discarded them after testing. >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.