Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 18:10:46 07/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2004 at 18:21:26, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On July 19, 2004 at 18:07:53, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>So I recently added some code to search the PV first >>but with an add-on whose effect may be a curveball >>in the longrun but appears okay at first. >> >>PV is searched first but with the add-on that any other >>position that is searched (but not on the PV) there is a check >>made for whether a PV-move at the same depth is available >>in this position and if so it is searched first. >> >>Anyway, after doing the above my test results made another (small) >>jump over just using the first move only of the prior iteration's >>principal variation. >> >>Version 2.01 >> ~Time Solved Solved Time Nodes other information >> per move % / Total Tot Tot other information >>// 5 sec - 75% 227/300 1620.68 281651520 938838/5/173787 0/0/18410820/0/0/0 >>// 1 sec - 66% 199/300 323.91 53624628 178749/1/165555 0/0/3556160/0/0/0 >> >>Version 2.00 >>// 5 sec - 73% 218/296 1687.07 301382976 1004610/6/178643 0 0/19507018/0/0/0 >>// 1 sec - 62% 187/300 313.89 52147824 173826/1/166134 0/0/3460861/0/0 >> >>Stuart > >So will that become GNUchess6 in the end? :) If I may ask, do you start from >scratch again or are you using something from GNUchessX? > >Sargon It won't. GNU Chess will remain as Chua Kong-Sian's code from version 5 until something provably better comes along. For example, it has to be readable and play reasonably well. That's a high bar. Beowulf and Crafty strike me as two easy-to-obtain, better-written and better documented chess programs than GNU Chess so I am not terribly motivated. GA is just a toy to take up time. I had hoped to dabble in genetic algorithms, hence the name, but got (predictably) caught up in all the nitty-gritty which is gradually sorting itself out. At least it can beat me easily now whereas a couple weeks ago it couldn't. One person (Mridul) is working on pre-GNU-6 based on Vincent's move generator -- but I think they both underestimate the value of bitboards in the evaluation phase and the cost of evaluation in non-bitboard programs, as stated by Bob. So I am not sure that such an approach will bear fruit for the requirements that include readability and playability. A bitboard evaluation is really easy to read and understand for the most part. Other methods appear ugly and clumsy (and slower) in comparison. Stuart
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.