Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 10:46:42 06/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 2001 at 13:16:42, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>Intresting. So you found a definite tactical strength increase? >>Any numbers on WAC? > >WAC isn't a good suite once you've made your engine capable. If you run it at >a minute per test, on decent hardware, you'll get at least 296 of them right. >Reducing time doesn't change this much. I use the ECM suite because it is >harder, so making the program faster or better results in more solutions. ECM >has bugs, which I ignore, since even with them it's still the best tactical >suite. I understand. But if I'm not mistaken ECM is several times as large as WAC. For now I am using WAC as a first test. I get 293 with basic Crafty on my machine at 5 sec per move. If I fiddle with it and I start getting a few less, thats a good indication its not going to be tactically stronger with it. My first attempts were pretty disasterous. I've done a lightweight implementation based on code from Bob and your comments, and now I get 292. Just one less, so it could be interesting. >I do something approximating what is mentioned in that paper. I don't mean to >be a butthead, but I'm not going to go look at my stuff and lay it out here in >pseudo-code. If I'm going to do that, I'd at least do it for a paper or >something. I understand. >There are others who will take without crediting, and I don't want to >be responsible for inflating their myth. I wonder if you're thinking of someone in particular :) >I think that Bob started messing with it because I told him that I was messing >with it and liked it. I am not sure if he had success with it or not. So far not I guess, as there's no sign of this code in standard crafty. >It's hard to get it to do anything other than suck plies. Agreed :) >I wrote a fairly direct implementation and it worked alright after some >fiddling. I didn't do everything the DT guys did. I did it as cheaply as I >could. I think this is indeed the right approach, as nowadays the programs search much smaller trees, and hence something as costly as full SE will just eat plies. If you lose more than 2 on every positions, you can't ever hope to regain those with an extension. As a sidenote, do you have a copy of Louget Chess Test I lying around? I can find II everywhere but I nowhere. I know you have used it for testing, so it can't be hidden away too far? -- GCP
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.