Author: Jonas Bylund
Date: 08:01:14 08/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
>Uri's point is absolutely valid. The more sofisticated knowledge you add to your >engine the harder it is to test. When you, above that, add the condition "1 >month games" it is practically impossible to verify if the new piece of code >it's ok. Numerous times I have added things to my engine, convinced that it was >an improvement, just to find out that it did worse. It could be due to a bug or >a mental black out that made me misunderstand how the code is changing the >search tree. Whatever it is I have to catch it with sometimes extensive testing. >I know that all engine programmers have done the same, maybe that I do it far >too often however... :-) > >/Peter Isn't there in "normal" engines condensed code in terms of knowledge that you would like to add but the cost in kn/s is too high, knowledge that you know is sound, but it will not work for your engine in practical play at popular time controls? My suggestion was not to cramp in all the knowledge at once, but to gradually add the knowledge to the extend where you might even see an increase of strength in 40/2 20/1 30 min for the rest games, but a decrease in strength in blitz and rapid games. The whole point was if it was possible, if you don't care about losing strength at shorter time controls, to increase strength at _long_ time controls/analysis by gradually adding knowledge.
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.