Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 15:17:12 08/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 2000 at 17:42:24, leonid wrote: >On August 10, 2000 at 16:51:08, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On August 10, 2000 at 15:45:06, leonid wrote: >> >>>On August 10, 2000 at 13:58:22, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On August 10, 2000 at 07:54:32, leonid wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 09, 2000 at 21:44:38, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 09, 2000 at 17:32:48, leonid wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 09, 2000 at 17:04:37, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On August 09, 2000 at 15:59:24, leonid wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I don't recall Ed ever calling his search brute force. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>-Tom >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If it is so, now I see why my branching factor is so miserable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I asked above question when I tried to solve this position by brute force. For >>>>>>>>>black side I looked up to 10 plys deep and it took already 12 min 17 sec. Move >>>>>>>>>was wrong. Black knight goes to the position e2. And for finding right move I >>>>>>>>>must go to the next 12 plys search. But this could take some next 6 hours. This >>>>>>>>>is how my old question about branching factor came to me. It prohibit to my >>>>>>>>>program to see very rapidly and reach far distance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You're the only person in the entire world who does these "brute force" >>>>>>>>searches. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-Tom >>>>>>> >>>>>>>When you want to know if your basic speed is the right one, only brute force >>>>>>>search could say you so. This I remember from writing my program for finding >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't know what basic speed means, but I'm sure that there isn't a right one. >>>>>>And a fixed-depth brute force search with no extensions and no quiescence search >>>>>>won't tell you anything useful. >>>>>> >>>>>>-Tom >>>>> >>>>>Tom, if you compare two programs that do its search, but not by brute force, you >>>>>actually compare "pruning technics" for both of them. But how much program with >>>>>good pruning technics still miss from its potential, you will find by seeing its >>>>>brute force speed only. >>>> >>>>What potential? Presumably the pruning techniques are increasing the program's >>>>potential, otherwise the author wouldn't use them. >>>> >>>>-Tom >>> >>>The same pruning technics, in two programs that have different brute force base, >>>winner will be program with best brute force speed. But by the same talken, it >>>could be said that program with best pruning technincs could be speeded even >>>more by speeding its brute force part. Sometime this brute force speeding will >>>simply forgotten when program already shine with its advanced pruning >>>capability. >> >>The speed of a forward-pruning program can be tested (and improved) just as >>easily as any other program. >> >>My point is that your "brute force" searches are extremely stupid and there's no >>reason for anyone to do them ever. >> >>-Tom > >Everybody can choose its own way. In the first part of my program I did exectly >like you said, pruning technics first and brute force second. My second part I >go opposit way. Experience say me that this way is logical. For you entire game >start and end with one part. Here we are different. I made a copy of my program that does your brute force searches, i.e., no check extension, no quiescence search, and no null move. I called it "Stupid." I played a match between Stupid and my program. Stupid lost 20 games in a row. It usually got mated around move 30. Once in a while it would last for 50-60 moves. So basically, you can add 3 things that are well-understood and that everybody has and you can immediately increase your program's strength by 400+ points, or you can continue down your brute force path and never have a strong program. -Tom
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.