Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 12:16:49 09/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2004 at 14:55:25, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Completely and totally agree with the above comment. Subdivide and conquer! Utilize the recursive alphabeta algorithm on this forum itself to divide up nodes (people) into like-minded, kindred spirits so as not to mix an alpha node with a beta node. Tally-ho! 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.