Author: Tom Likens
Date: 10:52:59 04/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2004 at 21:53:17, Christophe Theron wrote: >On April 10, 2004 at 15:55:17, Tom Likens wrote: >> >>I'm not sure where I come down on the bitboards vs. non-bitboard >>architectures. My engine is a bitboard engine, but that doesn't >>necessarily mean that the next one will be bitboard based. >> >>I don't believe though, that because no bitboarder has topped the >>SSDF list that this really constitutes any kind of proof. My strong >>suspicion is that if all the top commercial programmers converted >>over to bitboards tomorrow (yourself included) that *eventually* >>their new engines would again rise to the top of the SSDF. I'm >>beginning to suspect that creating a strong (i.e. world-class) engine >>involves a helluva lot more than just the basic data representation, >>but instead involves... >> >>1. 24/7 dedication >>2. A *real* way to measure progress >>3. A selective search strategy that works 99.99999% of the time >>4. Attention to about 2^64 minor details >>5. A failed marriage (okay, maybe this is extreme but you see the point) >> >>regards, >>--tom > > > >Number 5 (or something close) was the reason why Tiger has made such a progress >between 1997 and 1999. :) > >Number 2, seriously, is worth spending several months on it. > > > > Christophe This has been my main focus over the past few weeks. It's become readily apparent to me that the improvement slope from here on up is much steeper and I rather not waste my time implementing features that I can't properly test. regards, --tom
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.