Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: sliding attacks in three #define

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.