Author: Severi Salminen
Date: 07:46:42 03/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
>Note that I am still *new* to computer chess. Nobody could re-discover all >knowledge of over 100 years of that field. Therefore, I should learn first and >there is not any course better than updating source codes like Crafty and this >club (and new idea source of computer chess seems be very few, only from them, >doesnt it?). And if I build a new engine from nothing, how many years will it be >as good as present engines? It may take me 10-20 years. I hope I could save many >years by that learning ;-) [snip] It is not that hard to build an engine from nothing (I have done it 2 times: first with assembler and now with C). And my point was not that everything should be re-invented - you can use the same techniques that have been used for tens of years. The point was whether to use code someone has made before or write your own code. I don't mind at all using the same techniques that others also use, I just don't like the idea (not necessarely you) of people using the same code others use. Of course it is good that you ask about anything here at CCC, I also do that. >I have done that way of move ordering but note that Crafty is still 15 times as >fast as mine (with the same search time, I reach the depth of 8, Crafty does the >depth of 10) :-( > >The way of root move ordering of Crafty seems to be very intersting and may be >one of the answers for my slowdown. I love to understand it. If you do the PV first at the root node you are doing just fine. Check out your moveordering at all nodes. Count the percentage: first_move_tried_failed_high/moves_failed_high. This should be above 90%. If that is the case you have good move ordering and it is quite hard to improve. Severi
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.