Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:10:58 03/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 09, 2005 at 21:19:51, Alex Newman wrote: >On March 09, 2005 at 21:12:52, Michael Yee wrote: > >>On March 09, 2005 at 20:27:09, Alex Newman wrote: >> >>>I can take the source code of Crafty and make an engine stronger then Crafty in >>>less then a week. >> >>Not to be (too) confrontational, but have you actually accomplished this feat, >>say, in a private experiment? >> >>There was someone here a while ago who was trying to get people to bet him a >>large sum of money that he couldn't improve crafty by some amount of points >>(maybe 100?). >> >>I'm skeptical of these kind of claims because if it were possible to improve >>crafty by that much, it would almost be commercial strength (according to WBEC >>ratings)... So why wouldn't that person just write a commercial-level engine >>from scratch (given that he has the last "secrets" anyway)? >> >>Michael > >I didn't say 100 ELO. I just said 'improve'. >No, I didn't try it. But try adding checks in quiescent, history and better >futility pruning, and you should get at least 30 ELO. >I think Crafty could be better in tactics. 1. crafty uses history. always has. 2. older versions used checks in q-search. you can see from the comments in main.c when they were removed. The version with was absolutely no better than the version without, and the code was simpler without. 3. "better futility pruning" I don't know about. It is already risky enough, but who knows what can be improved there...
This page took 0.01 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.