Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 12:36:22 10/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
You misinterpreted me. On October 03, 2003 at 14:51:24, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 03, 2003 at 13:38:54, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > >>Hi, >> >> I was a bit taken aback by these declarations : >> >>On October 03, 2003 at 12:47:23, Uri Blass wrote: >>>I prefer even not to care about using hash tables for pruning because my >>>experience told me that I cannot get significant gain there easily >> >>Hash table not giving you pruning ? I suspect a bug in your hashkey - >>nothingelse. >>Or maybe it is the easily that is operative word ? >>I think there are a lot of open source programs that you can refer to and >>correct your bugs with - crafty , GNUChess , etc , etc. >>Might help to get this right. > >I do not like to copy from other sources. >I found that instability helped me to do my program significantly better. > >If I delete it in order to be able to copy from other programs then I may need >to start by doing it significantly weaker. > I did not mean - "copy" here. Rome was not built in a day. What I meant is : Look at their implementation - check yours. Find any obvious bugs. I seriously suspect that there are - since hashtables not only help in pruning , but massively help in move ordering. If you can afford to make these statements - then your impl is horribly full of bugs. As far as "instability helping" - I'm really not sure what you mean by this. As far as I know - everyone , including me , tries to reduce instability so that search is more stable requiring minimal search tree. Wild extensions , unstable pruning , etc may help you in solving test suites better and faster - but in real world games , it will suck badly. >> >> >>>(I have a lot >>>of stuff that means that pruning or extension is not defined only by the >>>position). >> >>Where ever possible , I try to make the search behaviour as relevent to the >>current position as possible and not rely on past search. >>Why do you want to do the opposite ? > >because the opposite gives me some advantages. test , test , test - dont assume. like my collegue says : When you AssUMe , you make an Ass of U and Me ;) >Movei has its chances against every program inspite of having bad order of moves >and bad extensions and bad pruning. > acceptance is the first step to improvement ! >I believe that I can get above Crafty level if I improve order of move >extensions,pruning and evaluation. > >Movei already has its chances against Crafty but today crafty is significantly >better. > >There is a lot to improve and the main problem is programming. > >Uri AFAIK movei is not smp - so no point in saying search here :) SO , other than move ordering , eval and pruning : what else is left ? interface code ? ;) anyone can get to crafty level or higher - IF you are willing to put in the effort and scientifically research. All the best - wishing to see a better Movei and a more scientific Uri :)
This page took 0.03 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.