Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:14:09 12/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2001 at 12:13:36, Rafael Andrist wrote: >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 There is still a problem because other programs may do different extensions and pruning and different qsearch. programs also do not search to the same depth in all positions and it is another problem. Uri
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.