Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 16:28:28 09/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2004 at 15:18:47, Andrew Williams wrote: >On September 19, 2004 at 14:21:30, Uri Blass 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. >> >>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. >> > >To be honest, it was a wild guess. PM gets 269 right in 1 second on my AMD 64 >3200. Probably you're right and I was wrong to say "pretty sure". But it doesn't >matter at all. > >>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. >> > >That may be true, but I would reiterate that looking at its performance in WAC >is not going to help Stuart much in improving it. I don't even think it will >help much in improving its performance on other tactical tests, but that is just >a guess. I would strongly re-state my point: to learn what is wrong with a chess >program, it is better to play games than to test over and over on a test suite. >Even testing over and over on several test suites is not a good idea, in my >opinion. Ahh, but you may have forgotten: I am a *very* weak player. That would be like Fide Master David Gliksman advising Gary Ksaparov. Doesn't make sense. In fact, the difference in rating points is probably similar. I am likely around 1400 and my program is already showing over master the IQ test... so this just doesn't make sense. I can understand test results. Throw me a position and I drown. 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.