Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:01:16 09/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2004 at 11:10:14, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >Hi -- I am looking for 2 or 3 beta testers who would receive >(full) source code to my program and in return would provide >input and comments about improving the search. They would >simply agree not to redistribute it and in fact discard it after >a week or two of looking at it (and commenting.) The program is in C, >5000 lines. The search and quiescence routines are 600 lines total. > >The reason I am considering this is due to hitting a brick wall at 249/300 >on WAC for several weeks now and knowing there are things I just cannot >find or go further with. The above score is at 1 second per position on a >1ghz P3 with a small transposition table. I am told that 270-300 is considered >"good" for this time control on this test. On this same machine >at the same time setting, with WAC, Crafty gets 270/300. > >The kind of beta testers I'm looking for are experienced programmers >who have written their own program and it has long since graduated >from Win-at-Chess as a test suite, perhaps scoring 270 or above at >1 second per move on a Pentium III 1ghz or above. To them, WAC has >become ho-hum and in fact they are currently just sitting on their >laurels without a lot of major advances. Their program has "matured." >They see themselves as senior chess programmers helping less >experienced authors. > >What I would favor > > 1) beta tester with solid program agrees to simultaneous exchange > of source code > > --and-- > > 2) beta tester agrees to seriously review the quiesce(), search(), > store(), retrieve(), and iterate() functions. > >I am fine to sign any non-disclosure agreement. > >This is just an attempt to break through a brick wall. > >Stuart What you are really looking for is a "quick fix" to a problem without one. There is no easy way to make a program revolutionarily better. It is a continual evolutionary process that, for the main ingredient, needs _time_ in copious quantities. There are far better projects to tackle if the goal is "done in 180 days or less". Chess doesn't fit that very well. It is more like (for me) not done in 36 years and counting...
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.