Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 02:12:48 07/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2001 at 18:50:55, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 01, 2001 at 18:07:48, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>On July 01, 2001 at 17:52:48, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On July 01, 2001 at 13:21:04, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On July 01, 2001 at 12:58:40, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 01, 2001 at 06:44:23, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 01, 2001 at 05:09:45, stefan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>see also >>>>>>> >>>>>>>http://members.tripod.com/~RyanMack/hypertech.htm >>>>>> >>>>>>If it is truth than it seems that we are going to see a progress of more than >>>>>>200 elo in comp-comp games only because of better software for the PIII >>>>>>hardware. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have not enough knowledge to understand if he is right >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>If the move generator in my own program took zero time it would increase in Elo >>>>>points by maybe 20 or 30, and that's probably high. >>>>> >>>>>bruce >>>> >>>>You are right that only move generation is not enough but the point is that I >>>>understand that the data structure helps to do everything faster. >>>> >>>>He suggests in the last 3 lines when you click on the link that the program can >>>>see 10,000,000 nodes per second with the evaluation function >>>> >>>>If you rememeber that nodes is only legal move because he talked about legal >>>>move generator then the result is more impressive. >>>> >>>>We need to wait and see if he is right. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>I looked at it and I think there's a good chance he's full of beans. I don't >>>think he has the first clue about how to build a chess program, and I think that >>>he thinks that if he gets the first small part of it done perfectly, the rest >>>will just naturally follow. >>> >>>I don't know if there is a name of this kind of thing, but I see this attitude >>>expressed often. On the one hand, we have builders, on the other, we have >>>visionaries. But this kind of person is neither. You have someone who knows >>>nothing about a problem, but is confident that the problem is trivial and can be >>>easily solved (by them in particular), and when you question them about the >>>aspects they haven't considered and can't cope with, they blow smoke and make >>>promises they can't keep. >>> >>>Perhaps a term for these people is "marketing". >>> >>>bruce >> >>.. Or "children" -> http://members.tripod.com/~RyanMack/aboutme.htm >> >>:-) >> >>Andrew Williams > >Even if his assumptions are wrong I find his knowledge very impressive for a 16 >years old(assuming that he is not lying). > I agree. He wouldn't be the first teenager who was clever but not wise. >I also work on a legal move generator but I know nothing of assembler and >nothing of optimizations for pIII. > >My legal move generator is not perfect(it does not consider legal en passant >moves in replies to check and it considers every illegal en passant capture when >the pawn is not pinned) but it is good enough to calculate perft 6 in the >initial position and perft 5 in another poisition correctly. > >I have some ideas how to improve significantly the speed of my move generator >but I have no estimate exactly how much it is going to be faster and my ideas >are only about the algorithm. > >Today it is about 10 times slower than Crafty in calculating the perft function. > >I do not think to continue with a chess program before I will be satisfied with >the speed of calculating the perft function. > >Uri I wouldn't care too much about that. Suppose you have loads of stuff in your makemove() that makes it possible to achieve very good move-ordering. Or that makes it very quick to evaluate a node (because much of the work has been done earlier). Then your perft speed will be terrible, but your program could be excellent. Andrew
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.