Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:27:03 12/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2002 at 12:46:23, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 10, 2002 at 12:19:25, Nicolas GUIBERT wrote: > >> >>>I believe that 200 lines are not enough to have a top program but 2000 lines >>>with the right knowledge and good search algorithm may be enough. >>> >>>It may be interesting to know how many lines do programs like >>>Junior or Ruffian have. >>> >> >>I probably have the same opinion as Vincent on this subject. Evaluation is >>extremely important and very often one single line does the same as 30-40 plies >>of search... >> >>The thing is also that when you know a lot about the game yourself you can't >>stand seeing your program play a stupid move because it does not understand >>something... And then you write down the thing on your to-do list... And finally >>implement the necessary thing... > >I know about chess more than other games. >I know about chess better than most programmers(my rating is close to 2000) you mean your correspondence rating? So not a national rating based upon 40 in 2 games. or are you just guessing here like Ed Schroeder used to do, guessing himself at 2000 national though i estimate him at 1300 national. So is this just like me guessing my draughts rating is 1600? Your chess comments here make me believe you are more like a 1400. >I look at games of movei. > >If I see a pattern that happen again and again I am going to fix it but I am not >going to work on every stupid move that the program does. > > >> >>You're never satisfied and so you keep adding things to your evaluation >>function. >> >>Moreover, the full evaluation function needs not be used all the time. Lazy >>evaluation does the job most of the time. For example, in Buggy, full evaluation >>is not so much time-consuming because it is only used 1/4th of the times. > >I use incremental evaluation. > >The full evaluation is one of the factors that is used for my pruning rules and >it is a reason why it is relatively less easy to change things without bugs. >> >>I do not believe you can build a strong program without a lot of knowledge. >> >>But for that you need to see the holes by yourself. > >I see that big part of the problems could be prevented by searching 1,2 or 3 >plies deeper. > >Uri
This page took 0.01 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.