Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:47:07 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2003 at 01:26:36, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 21:21:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 27, 2003 at 20:58:43, David Dahlem wrote: >> >>>On November 27, 2003 at 19:50:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 27, 2003 at 18:37:33, Matthias Gemuh wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 27, 2003 at 18:15:34, Amir Ban wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Here is the List-Brutus game from 7th round. >>>>>> >>>>>>Can anyone get any crafty version with any setting to play List's 13. Be2 or 19. >>>>>>Qd4 ? >>>>>> >>>>>>Amir >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>[Event "WCCC 11th"] >>>>>>[Site "Graz"] >>>>>>[Date "2003.11.26"] >>>>>>[Round "7"] >>>>>>[White "List"] >>>>>>[Black "Brutus"] >>>>>>[Result "1/2-1/2"] >>>>>>[ECO "A00"] >>>>>>[PlyCount "134"] >>>>>>[EventDate "2003.??.??"] >>>>>> >>>>>>1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nxe4 Nd7 4. d4 Ngf6 5. Ng3 h5 6. Bd3 c5 7. Nf3 h4 8. >>>>>>Ne2 h3 9. gxh3 a6 10. Ng5 cxd4 11. Nxd4 Nc5 12. Bc4 e6 13. Be2 Nfe4 14. Nxe4 >>>>>>Nxe4 15. Qd3 f5 16. Nb3 Qf6 17. c3 Bd7 18. Be3 Bb5 19. Qd4 Bxe2 20. Qxf6 Nxf6 >>>>>>21. Kxe2 Rxh3 22. Nd4 Kf7 23. Nf3 Kg8 24. Ng5 Rh6 25. Nf3 Rh5 26. Bd4 Nd5 27. >>>>>>Be5 a5 28. Rhg1 Rh7 29. Rad1 Rc8 30. Rd4 Nb6 31. Bd6 Bxd6 32. Rxd6 Na4 33. Rd2 >>>>>>b5 34. h4 Nb6 35. Kf1 b4 36. cxb4 axb4 37. Rd4 b3 38. axb3 Rh6 39. Kg2 Kf7 40. >>>>>>Ra1 Nd5 41. Rc4 Rb8 42. Ne5+ Kg8 43. Ra7 Rxb3 44. Nf7 Rg6+ 45. Ng5 Rb8 46. Kf1 >>>>>>Rf6 47. Rd4 Rg6 48. b3 Rh6 49. Kg2 Rg6 50. f3 Nf6 51. Re7 Nd5 52. Rxe6 Rxe6 53. >>>>>>Nxe6 Rb5 54. Kf2 Kf7 55. Nf4 Nxf4 56. Rxf4 Rxb3 57. Rxf5+ Kg6 58. Rg5+ Kf6 59. >>>>>>Rc5 Kg6 60. Rc6+ Kh5 61. Kg3 Rb1 62. Rc5+ Kg6 63. Re5 Kf6 64. Ra5 Kg6 65. Kg2 >>>>>>Rb2+ 66. Kh3 Rb1 67. Rg5+ Kf6 1/2-1/2 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hijacked code snippets do not kick in at every move. >>>>>You certainly know that. >>>>> >>>>>/Matthias. >>>> >>>> >>>>IMHO it would depend on "what was hijacked (if anything was)?" IE the >>>>move generator is pretty "bland". It has to produce all moves in a given >>>>position, and that is deterministic in behavior. The evaluation is way >>>>different obviously and is one place where most of the "creativity" of >>>>the programming effort goes. Grabbing part of that would be way outside >>>>the bounds of reasonableness... >>> >>>In a post from the archives at >>> >>>http://www.chess-archive.com/ccc.php?art_id=270338 >>> >>>Dann Corbitt says this about the evaluation function of List... >>> >>>"I have seen the evaluation function, which uses separate lists for each piece >>>type." >>> >>>Can you tell us if there could possibly be any relation between the evaluation >>>of List and Crafty, based on Dann's statement? :-) >>> >>>Regards >>>Dave >> >> >>As I said, I am in an "information vacuum" here. I don't know _anything_ >>about list at all. I was (above) responding to the idea of whether or not >>it is reasonable to grab _any_ of an existing engine. If the answer is >>"no" then how many are using egtb.cpp from Eugene? Since egtb.cpp is >>deterministic in its behavior, I don't see it as a problem. I was pointing >>out that _some_ parts of an engine will produce the same "result" no matter >>who writes it (movgen for example). Other parts will not (the evaluation to >>name one, but the search itself is something else too due to extensions). > >I think that the move generator is not going to generate the same result. > >My move generator generate only legal moves so it is different than your move >generator. So. We are doing it _differently_. But I _only_ pay attention to legal moves. > >My move generator also give scores for all moves for move ordering(against >different than other move generators because I am sure that even if other give >scores they do not do it in the same way). Same way or not, the point was that generating moves for a position is a static task with a fixed and finite output. That is different from an evaluation that has a lot of the "author" encoded there... > >Order of moves in the move generator is also not deterministic and can influence >the program. not normal alpha/beta. But that's not the point here... Efficiency is not the issue. IE if you need to find a bit in a word, should you learn how to write your own asm function, or use mine that already works? I'd say use mine. You _do_ use a random number generator you didn't write, correct? > >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.