Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:19:46 01/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2004 at 05:11:17, Tord Romstad wrote: >On January 23, 2004 at 16:07:04, Uri Blass wrote: > >>I think that your program is not less complicated than Crafty and you have a lot >>of things in your evaluation and your search that Crafty does not have. >> >>Gothmog is weaker than Crafty but it proves nothing because you also did not >>spend a lot of time on it. > >The above might be true, but it is not very interesting in the present >discussion, because >chess programming using conventional techniques is not a very difficult >programming >task. What we all do is basically implementing and fine-tuning relatively >simple and >well-known algorithms. All the hard work of inventing the techniques has been >done >in the past. Like Newton, we're standing on the shoulders of giants. > >Tord It is interesting because Crafty does not implement ideas that are posted in Ed's page. basically I decided to go for chess programming because I believe that chess programs are stupid and search too big trees(it is the same for movei but I hope to change it and the problem is not having the right ideas but implementing them). For example chessmaster6000(I did not buy later version) searched for a long time a line when in some move near the beginning of the line white can force a simple mate(I know because chessmaster6000 also has an option to shows the line that it search in every second). Note that my program today is not better and can have similiar behaviour but I plan to change it after I rewrite my alphabeta. I think that the problem is that programs do not calculate exact scores for moves at reduced depth. Calculating exact score can help the program to save time by not searching these lines and if the depth is reduced enough the average save is going to be bigger than the average cost. The problem is that I found in the past that doing an additional search without making a move cause my program to need more nodes to finish the same depth even if I do not use the data of the additional search and reduce the number of nodes that I search to get the exact score. The problem is probably that I used the search to get exact scores to update more information that influence the search so I decided that I need to rewrite my alphabeta but I prefered to test in the last months other ideas instead of doing it because even without searching to get an exact score there are other ideas that can help my program. Not knowing an exact score at reduced depth is only one example for my opinion that programs of today are stupid(I guess that not knowing an exact score at reduced depth is not common for all the programs because the idea seems to me too simple not to think about it but I saw it also for other top programs when they wasted time on a move that is losing because of a simple mate). 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.