Author: Rafael Andrist
Date: 09:13:36 12/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2001 at 16:23:52, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 13, 2001 at 11:09:25, Rafael Andrist wrote: > >>On December 12, 2001 at 14:28:12, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On December 12, 2001 at 14:24:33, Rafael Andrist wrote: >>> >>>>On December 12, 2001 at 03:17:30, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>My guess is that a piece square table program with good search rules can get >>>>>2200-2300 ssdf rating on A1200 >>>>> >>>>>I think that it may be interesting if one of the top programmer will give also a >>>>>piece square table version of his program in order to test it(I say his because >>>>>unfortunately I do not know about a female top ptogrammer) >>>>> >>>> >>>>What do you consider "good search rules"? Which speed do you assume? >>>> >>>>Rafael B. Andrist >>> >>>I consider good search rules as the best that the top programmers can >>>practically do today. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I would guess around 2100. Why not try it out? You already have a move >>generator, so you do not need to do much to get a first impression what would be >>possible. > >No >I need to do a lot to get an impression what is possible because the main >problem is to have good search rules(I already have a weak chess program but no >null move pruning and today it does only 1 ply search and qsearch). > >Uri you could write a simple Alpha-Beta-search algo, then find out how much the program improves from ply to ply and then extrapolate this linearly to the depth of comercial engines. Rafael
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.