Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 10:24:25 12/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2004 at 12:13:17, john tromp wrote: >On December 04, 2004 at 18:04:56, martin fierz wrote: > >>>However, I found that the program still lacked in strength, since >>>it failed to see that some new threats would inevitably arise >>>that would change its perceived outcome. This turned out practically >>>impossible to correct, so I gave up on that approach. >> >>i wonder: i probably need some time to update threats etc that you don't need, >>but on the other hand, having an idea where the game is going should improve my >>move ordering. do you think it's not worth it? my experience with history >>heuristic in connect 4 is terrible to say the least, i'm not using it at all, it >>always made things worse for me. > >Then what do you use for move ordering? A static evaluator? >Is the source to your engine available, either publicly, or privately? > >>my current program solves connect 4 in 1520s on an AMD64 3000+ with 128MB >>hashtable. it searches 4.55 GN to do this. how does your program do? > >Please download and run the Fhourstones benchmark and let me know:-! > >I hope your AMD64 is fast enough to beat the current record holding >overclocked Pentium-M (4102 Kpos/s) > > http://www.cwi.nl/~tromp/c4/fhour.html Can I get an .exe version for windows somewhere ? (i've no C compiler) > >For my desktop machine, the result with 48Mb hashtables is > >Solving 0-ply position after . . . >3215994182 pos / 1548481 msec = 2076.9 Kpos/sec > >which is quite comparable to your searchsize. It could also >solve it with 640Kb of hashtable but that will take at least twice as long. > >regards, >-John
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.