Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 03:52:00 05/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2004 at 06:24:28, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 04, 2004 at 06:06:34, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > >>On May 03, 2004 at 15:07:50, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On May 03, 2004 at 14:18:33, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On May 03, 2004 at 13:35:38, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>I know you do not believe a thing, especially not things where 10 people are a >>>>witness from in the dutch computer chess championship. >>> >>>I do not believe that these 10 people know what he does. >>>I do not know what he says but in case that he says that he is working a full >>>year only to get 0.5% speed imporovement or even 10% speed improvement(I did not >>>hear it from other people except you) then my assumption is that he gives >>>disinformation because it does not make sense to do it. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I am not sure of that Uri , I do remember Johan saying that it is getting >>increasingly tough to improve King. >>Similarly maybe for fritz - when your engine is so well optimised with author >>having worked on finetuning it for decades (like fritz) , then the number of >>possible avenues for improving it , while keeping existing strength intact, will >>become very tough. >> >>So maybe Frans Morch , SMK , Johan , Christoher , etc do find it tough to >>improve things which should have almost no negetive impact on current >>performance. >> >>Mridul > >SMK clearly gets more than 10 elo in a year. >Same for Frans morch. > >I believe that there is a big room for search improvments in chess programs and >programs search too many illogical lines so it is a big mistake to work on speed >improvement when it is possible to get more improvement by other means. > >Uri Yes , even I believe that there could still be possibly lot of improvements - like in better move ordering , more restricted extensions , better qsearch , better eval , pruning expiriments , etc. The advantage that you and me have is that we can try out all our ideas and release versions which incorporate the newer ideas. If they fail - too bad , back to earlier versions. For commercials - they have to make sure that nothing fails , there are no regressions - making sure that there are no regressions is a major painful expierence. Also , commercials will have schedules by which time they have to release a newer and more improved version .... this is an added pressure in this commercial arena that amateurs dont have. Considering that I reject lot of ideas after implementing and testing it for weeks , it is quiet easy to imagine the pain the commercials programmers go through !! The number of ideas that they might be trying and rejecting since it does not fit their program will be very very high : hence the extensive testing that they do ..... Mridul
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.