Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 23:33:18 05/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2004 at 20:06:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >I don't understand all this "fiddling". IE oddball books. ponder=on vs >ponder=off, endgame tables on, endgame tables off. Learning on. Learning off. >Etc. > >I would have no objection if someone plays a long match, crafty vs program S, >then clears the learning data and plays a long match crafty vs program T. But >not disabling learning completely. Then I _know_ the book will cause a >problem... Because it isn't hand-tuned whatsoever... I don't see what is so interesting in trying to win the same games over and over. That kind of book cooking hasn't got very much to do with smarts of the engine, IMO. Most programmers are interested in real algorithmic progress, not in whether they can win every game just by getting the same couple of completely won positions out of the book. As for pondering you obviously can't play with ponder on at a uni-processor, so I don't see how that can come as a surprise. TBs, well, they are nice but unless you distribute them as part of the engine package you can't really expect all users to have them or even demand that the engine always have access to them. They are an add-on that might or might not be there. If you are dead set on Crafty always playing with TBs, then you can just have Crafty exit if it doesn't find the TBs :) -S.
This page took 0.02 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.