Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Win at Chess

Author: Don Dailey

Date: 09:01:01 01/18/98

Go up one level in this thread


My program is similar except we are very stingy about extensions.
I am running on a single Alpha for this test so we could adjust down
for hardware but I don't think that is necessary.  I think the fast
micros are still outsearching us by quite a bit because our evaluation
is 2/3 of our time.  It seems like Nimzo was doing 250K NPS on a 300 MHZ
pentium and I'm only doing 125-175K NPS in middlegames on 1 processor
at 466 MHZ.  I don't know if Nimzo is typical or not for the good
micro's.
The question is should we scale down a little for hardware or just use
the numbers I have now?

I am still running the set but only have 100 problems left or so.  I
ran them about 30 seconds to get an idea of how they are distributed
in difficulty.   I'll email the problems to you I cannot solve in 10
seconds so we can "or" them together.

When we come up the final set I will volunteer to do a pass which might
eliminate multiple solutions or other problems.   After I do this I'll
forward the quirky problems (if any) with information for each problem
on why they should be eliminated and we can check each others work
this way.

Ed has volunteered a repository.  Do you want to be the editor and keep
the set up to date?   I can do this if you're not inclined.

- Don




On January 18, 1998 at 11:00:27, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On January 17, 1998 at 23:57:02, Don Dailey wrote:
>
>>Ok I'm running the problems tonight to cull the easy ones.  The ones
>>my program cannot find in under 10 seconds must remain in the set
>>assuming they are not bad problems as we discussed.   When we have
>>a final set I/we can test for multiple solutions.  I can hack my
>>program to not include they key move in the root move list and look for
>>multiple solutions (near the same score.)   Who is the third volunteer?
>>
>>
>>- Don
>>
>>
>>
>
>one important point.  Everyone knows what sort of "searcher" Crafty
>is...
>full width for N plies, several extensions, simple q-search.  How would
>you classify Cilkchess?  And we need a third volunteer that has a
>different
>sort of search, like maybe Genius, or Rebel, or something that has a
>different approach...  So that we don't stack the deck hard for our type
>of searches, but produce something easy for other (perhaps selective)
>searches...



This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.