Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:28:46 02/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2002 at 07:48:42, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 25, 2002 at 20:27:56, K. Burcham wrote: > >> >>I know most here are familiar with all of this, but I thought this >>was interesting reading. Cilkchess must have been strong. >>kburcham >> >>http://supertech.lcs.mit.edu/cilk/ >> >>Cilkchess came in fourth in the 1999 world computer championships. >>Cilkchess beat Junior, Rebel, Nimzo, Chesstiger, Hiarcs, Diep. in the standings. > >Actually i didn't play the big cilkchess but 'mini' in paderborn and >DIEP won from it. I did lose to cilkchess in the dutch champs though >where it participated. > >Programmer is Don Dailey, perhaps he can react himself here. He's >a real cool guy. We played some game cilkchess - diep at my home. > >In world champs i remember it usually searched around 17 ply. > >Note that i outsearched any opponent in the endgame. I got 20 ply there. > >Reason is my endgame eval was more stupid than theirs and i ran on >Bob's quad in wcc99. If the definition of outsearching is searching more plies then I agree but it has nothing to do with being better at tactics. Stupid evaluation can prevent null movers to see tactics because it can cause them to prune moves when there is no threat based on the evaluation. better evaluation with smaller depth may mean seeing winning material faster because it means not to prune the wrong moves and 17 plies with pruing of the right moves may be better than 20 plies with pruning of wrong moves. 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.