Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:21:30 09/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2004 at 12:54:57, Andrew Williams wrote: >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. >> > >It strikes me that comparing your program with crafty (or any other program for >that matter) based on 1 second searches in WAC is a bit weird. And a waste of >time. I'm pretty sure, for example, that my program would do worse at WAC 1 >second searches than yours on that hardware and I certainly don't care either >way. Did you test it. If not how can you be sure about it? Without testing my guess based on the level of your program is that you do better than 250 solutions in WAC at 1 second per move on stuart Hardware because I expect every program that is at the level of postmodernist to do it. Crafty is not relatively strong in tactics of short searches and there are a lot of weaker programs who do better than it. If a program does significantly worse than Crafty in WAC at 1 second per move then there is a lot to improve in it's search. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.