Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 12:09:10 04/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2004 at 14:21:07, Christophe Theron wrote: >You know, one has to wonder where the difference in elo strength between Crafty >and the top commercial comes from. My guess is that the following three factors (in order of importance) are the main reasons: 1. No selectivity at all except for recursive null move and some futility pruning. 2. Very simplistic qsearch. 3. Lack of endgame knowledge. I don't think it is entirely fair to compare Crafty to the top commercial engines, though. Bob's goals are not quite the same as yours. His primary goal is not to create an engine which plays well on computers which most people buy, but to write an engine which takes advantage of very fast multi-processor machines. I think the gap between Crafty and the top commercial engines would have been much smaller if Bob had concentrated on good selective search rather than parallel search. >One thing I am convinced of is that if the top chess programmers started to >exchange ideas, like Ed and I did, you would see a significant increase in the >strength of these top programs. Clearly some of them would benefit more. You're probably right. I often wonder why other commercial programmers don't seem to make similar alliances (perhaps they do, but keep it secret?). Tord
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.