Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:58:38 02/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2005 at 00:36:58, Tony Werten wrote: >On February 10, 2005 at 17:09:23, Joshua Haglund wrote: > >>On February 10, 2005 at 17:03:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 10, 2005 at 14:16:50, Joshua Haglund wrote: >>> >>>>On February 10, 2005 at 14:06:28, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 10, 2005 at 13:40:04, Joshua Haglund wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Can anyone tell me if Squash kibitzes too much or too little? >>>>>> >>>>>>Squash(C) kibitzes: depth: 7 nodes: 1.78m eval: 0.03 time: 4.49 >>>>>>Squash(C) kibitzes: move g2g4 >>>>>> >>>>>>follow Squash >>>>>> >>>>>>Joshua Haglund >>>>>>toneewa@yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>>Most people output what you have, but with the entire PV. Zappa does score + >>>>>nps + depth + PV. Only the Australian programmers kibitz the entire contents of >>>>>the hash table every move. >>>>> >>>>>anthony >>>> >>>>Squash(C) kibitzes: depth: 3 nodes: 1.61k eval: 0.65 time: 0.00 >>>>Squash(C) kibitzes: depth: 4 nodes: 7.67k eval: 0.78 time: 0.02 >>>>Squash(C) kibitzes: depth: 5 nodes: 52.19k eval: 0.94 time: 0.13 >>>>Squash(C) kibitzes: depth: 6 nodes: 436.54k eval: 0.82 time: 1.13 >>>>Squash(C) kibitzes: move f3e5 >>>> >>>>I actually kibitz anything over 1k nodes, but the pv. Wouldn't humans cheat by >>>>using the pv? >>>> >>>>Joshua Haglund >>>>toneewa@yahoo.com >>> >>>Just kibitz the _last_ search result before you make your move. If both >>>programs kibitz every iteration, an endgame will be impossible to watch. Are >>>you going to kibitz everything from ply 4 to ply 50 in fine#70? :) >> >>Yeah, I noticed this. I'm playing around with some ideas. > >Start kibitzing after 2 secs. > >Tony that is not always good enough. That can still produce dozens of kibitzes in an endgame. > >> >>Joshua Haglund >>toneewa@yahoo.com
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.