Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 14:25:56 08/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2004 at 15:18:45, David B Weller wrote: >Hi Stuart, > >I follow your threads with great interest, for it seems we are at a similar >level with our engines [I doubt as a programmer though] > >You may have addressed this once already: > >GES [my engine] is relatively slow, and thus prone to losing tactics. So I too >use WACNEW.epd extensively to judge the merit of certain changes. > >But I have seen clearly, that what might increase correct answers, average >depth, fail-high-1, branching factor, and any other metric I follow, will often >make GES play worse. > >What I do, is just make sure the results from wacnew stay within a certain range >[eg., >= 240 correct at 1sec/pos on AMD 1Ghz] and then test in some games with >competitive opponents. > >Even if you only play a couple games, I think its safer, than making conclusions >just after running wacnew. > >Ive seen this happen very clearly with GES. > >that'll be 0.02$, :) > >-David Hi David -- I think your program is better. Believe me. I've seen the code (but haven't borrowed anything yet.) I see what you and others are talking about in this regard and have considered the same idea. I may just end up throwing larger problem sets at it. ECM seems to be rather hard. My program is mostly just for private research and I don't have anyone other than me who wants to play it but I should renew my account as a computer account on FICS/ICS, etc. Problem is, I don't know that I'd be playing against a human. Everyone there seems to use computers to get the edge. 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.