Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:31:59 11/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2002 at 17:24:53, Bob Durrett wrote: [snip] >>Elo range is from 1000 to 2600. > >Could that not be explained primarily by the fact that some of the engines are >relatively immature whereas others are quite mature? An ELO difference of 1600 means (basically) that one engine searches exponentially deeper and the weaker one will never win any points. That indicates that the algorithms are different. Either that, or one is broken or severely buggy. >I would expect also that >full-time programmers with years of programming experience would do quite a bit >better than people just starting out in chess engine programming. Not always, >but in most cases. In other words, the process of going from algorithm to >source code might involve some skill and produce a few errors affecting engine >performance, too. Right? So, how much of the performance does one attribute to >algorithm selection, and how much to coding? No way to know, but there is surely some effect due to skill. [snip] >>>If all the chess engines are using >>>essentially the same algorithms, then ALL chess engines will be using "good >>>algorithms" [giving present-day algorithms the benefit of the doubt.] >> >>If all engines were using the same algorithms, they would be at about the same >>strenght. Why then, do chess engines vary in playing strength by many orders of >>magnitude? > >Maybe, primarily, program maturity and programming skills, as suggested above? Programming maturity and programming are used to produce better algorithms. An identical algorithm will perform identically. An inferior algorithm will perform in an inferior manner. [snip]
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.