Author: Brian Richardson
Date: 19:35:56 03/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2002 at 20:02:24, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 25, 2002 at 19:49:40, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On March 25, 2002 at 12:50:57, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>Gerbil is clearly more complicated than tscp and gerbil >>>is also clearly better than tscp. >>>Gerbil is using hash tables and ponder when tscp does not. >> >>Searching faster/deeper via hash tables and pondering does not necessarily make >>it better. Last I checked, Gerbil relied entirely on piece/square tables. Gerbil v2 has some additional eval terms per the eval.c comments below: // This eval function evaluates: // // 1. Pawn structure, which is hashed and handled in another module. // 2. Piece location, which is usually related to central occupation or // in the case of pawns, simple advancement. // 3. Minors blocking d2/e2 pawns. // 4. King on f1/g1 with rook on g1/h1. // 5. Pawn shelter. // 6. Endgame king position values versus middlegame values. >>It wouldn't surprise me if TSCP does enough evaluation to beat piece/square table >>programs (unless it's getting ridiculously outsearched). > >From A. Herrmann's list (http://www.wbholmes.de/elo/eloceleron.txt): >place engine rating games + = - pts % oppo diff >========================================================================= >... > 62. Gerbil R02 2141 496 167 57 272 195.5 39.4 2218 -77 >... > 74. Tscp 1.73 * 2034 276 68 19 189 77.5 28.1 2199 -165 >... > >TSCP is fairly close to Gerbil. Gerbil is a very fast searcher, so TSCP's close >performance is rather surprising, I think.
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.