Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:52:50 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 02:33:18, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. I do it all the time with no problems whatsoever. So what if each program gets 1/2 of the processor? > >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 :) I'm not "dead set". But how many posts do you see her where some commercial engine can't mate with some simple ending like KBN vs K, when the tables are missing? I can handle no tables just fine, myself... but if someone relies on them, they ought to be able to rely on them all the time. > >-S.
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.