Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:55:25 09/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2004 at 14:25:43, Bryan Hofmann wrote: >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. >> >>Solving WAC positions is a *side-effect* of being a good program, in my opinion. >>I would strongly encourage you to play some games. Is your program WinBoard >>compatible? If so, send it to Leo Dijksman, Guenther Simon and lots of the other >>good testers who hang out at Winboard Forum. > >That would be asking the same people he insulted a few weeks ago calling them >Have Nots and that they should be excluded from the CCC as they did not program >chess engines. This is nothing more then a lackadaisical attempt to get someone >to fix his code from him. As far as I'm concerned the Brick Wall can fall on him >and his holier than tho attitude. I do not see why you are so hostile. I think that his complain was not about the fact that people did not program chess engines but that people discuss about different subjects. I guess that he has no objection to people who still did not write chess engines but have questions about writing them and I guess that the problem can be solved by dividing this board to some forums when one forum will be only about chess programming subjects and not discussing about results of chess programs or games when there is no connection to specific programming questions. Uri
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.