Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:37:28 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
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. It >wouldn't surprise me if TSCP does enough evaluation to beat piece/square table >programs (unless it's getting ridiculously outsearched). > >-Tom Piece square table with better search rules and hash tables and pondering is enough to beat tscp. The truth is that I have a piece square table program that is better than tscp without hash tables, pondering or null move It is using futility pruning and better time management and better order of moves than tscp and few extensions that tscp does not use but I have no doubt that the search rules can be improved significantly and not only by null move pruning and more pruning rules but by better extensions). My latest program has some more knowledge in the evaluation but based on tests that I did it is probably only slightly better than the piece square table version. I believe that tscp at depth x is weaker then modified tscp at depth x+2 when the modified version has only piece square table evaluation and x is not important. Maybe someone can test both versions against different programs in order to find out. 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.