Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:29:21 03/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2002 at 19:24:37, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On March 26, 2002 at 08:42:50, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 26, 2002 at 08:37:28, Uri Blass 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. 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 >> >>I can add that claiming that gerbil is clearly better than tscp was based on >>results of the tournament of Leo >>see the history pages of >>http://home.hccnet.nl/leo.dijksman/index.html >> >>Gerbil scored 21.5/28 when tscp scored only 13/28 >> >>Uri > >Don't forget blitz/rapid is different from real games. You say X is not >important, but it is... My piece square table program could beat tscp more easily at long time control thanks to better branching factor. I believe that the difference in depth is not more than 2 plies even at long time control inspite of the fact that I cannot do fair comparison because of the fact that my program also does more extensions than tscp and I also believe that I use better piece square table than tscp's piece square table. I did not say that x+2 with piece square table evaluation always beat every evaluation function with depth x for every x that you can practically use but I said it only about tscp. Maybe things become different when x=10 but tscp usually does not get depth 10 in the middle game even at 120/40 time control. When x<10 I believe that depth x+2 for piece square table that is the same as tscp is better than depth x for tscp full evaluation. Maybe somebody can volunteer to check it(it is easy to modify tscp to piece square table program) 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.