Author: Tom Likens
Date: 12:55:42 04/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2004 at 15:23:33, Tord Romstad wrote: >On April 13, 2004 at 14:20:08, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>My point was that it is a lot harder to get it working, because every term in >>the eval must be tuned to every other term. If you increase mobility, you may >>have to tweak the passed pawn bonus, etc. Hence there is a rough "square" in >>total tuning decisions vs number of eval terms. Which is why often times the >>simple but well tuned program does as well as the more complex evaluator. > >I think this is, to a great extent, a matter of skills, ambitions, and >preference. >There is no "right way" which works for everybody. If I just tried to write a >fast and simple bitboard engine with a PVS search, recursive null move pruning >and >a simple capture-only qsearch, I would just end up with a boring and vastly >inferior version of Crafty. So many people have followed the same approach in >the >past, and most of them are much better than me. My only hope of ever being able >to compete is to try to do something completely different. > >Tord Hey Tord, So how's that working out for you..., um, never mind ;-) --tom
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.