Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 15:57:44 09/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2004 at 14:38:47, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On September 19, 2004 at 12:01:16, Robert Hyatt 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. >>> >>>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... > >I don't think a quick fix is what I am looking for. I am attempting not to >have to reinvent the wheel. I am attempting to build on the shoulders of >others without, like Sisyphus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus), >having to roll the boulder up the hill and have it roll back on top of me. > >I am attempting to avoid rethinking what has been thought before. That is why >we are humans and not machines. Writing and speech came about to share >experience so that individuals would not have to go through the exact same >experience again if we chose to listen to others and profit from their >experience perhaps in an even more direct manner as has been done on >this board between myself and the extensive general help from others. > >But now the search has specific issues. General help may not help as >much. The curve is flattening. > >If nobody takes me up on the offer, sobeit. But at least I tried. > >I am curious about what are the changes that might take this program from >250/300 to 270/300 or 280/300 or 290/300 or 299/300. It has generated a life of >its own, that curiousity. It is not born out of commercial necessity nor to >attempt to impress others. It is simple, idle curiousity. I've been curious >about this subject for 36 years since age 10. It is not going to be shelved >or to go away for som other project. This *is* ***the*** project. > >Assuming I got a result like 260/300 or 270/300 or something, would the >project be done? No -- obviously not. But perhaps I could go to the next >area knowing that the tactics seemed to be relatively more solid and clearly >not obviously weak. That would be a useful goal to have completed. > >We all set our personal goals. For me, 260/300, then 270/300, then 280/300 >are my goals. 250/300 fell today after a small extension improvement. Does >the program necessarily play better? Of course I would never say that. But >that's not my goal. I want only to ensure that on its first test suite it >has a decent record. Later test suites, endgame suites, etc. will come in >due time. > >Stuart It might therefore have been better to take a mature program like Crafty, and spend time understanding how it works, then build on it's "shoulders".
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.