Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 04:06:21 09/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2004 at 21:28:16, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 19, 2004 at 20:37:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 19, 2004 at 15:10:54, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >> >>>On September 19, 2004 at 14:03:52, martin fierz wrote: >>> >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>>hi stuart, >>>> >>>>you seem to be very active programming your engine if the number of posts here >>>>at CCC is any indication. i guess you have put in all the basic stuff in your >>>>engine, and now it's playing some decent chess but is getting bashed on by the >>>>stronger engines, and you're not happy. >>>> >>>>i made a similar experience. after years of checkers programming, i started >>>>writing a chess program, which played it's first game about one month after i >>>>started on it, and improved in leaps and bounds for a couple of months, which >>>>was no big surprise to me since i'm rather familar with most of the techniques >>>>for chess programming from my checkers program. >>>>after half a year progress got slower, and after 9 months i couldn't detect any >>>>progress any more. i let it lie around for half a year now, and will try to find >>>>areas of improvement. but i think that from now on, progress is not so simple >>>>any more. i will have to take a good look at my evaluation for instance, and at >>>>the various extensions, and do a lot of testing. i don't believe there is any >>>>magic bullet that will do the trick. once you reach a certain level, every >>>>further improvement will have to be earned the hard way. >>>> >>>>in this sense, i encourage you to keep working on your engine, without resorting >>>>to this kind of 'senior programmer to the rescue' attitude! >>>> >>>>cheers >>>> martin >>> >>>I pulled back on an extension idea today and reduced another extension >>>and the program reached 250 out of 300 on WAC. So that's a "good weekend" >>>for me at this point. That I have two more days beyond today off to work >>>on it makes it only taste sweeter. I saved the version under "4.06" >>>and it is filed in the dusty history book area. >> >> >>You need to think about "cause" and "effect". IE does doing well on WAC make a >>program good, or does being good make a program do well on WAC? >> >>I believe the latter. I don't tune for test suites at all. As the program gets >>better, it will do better at wac as a result... Don't be confused and try to >>make it the other way around... > >I believe both. > >There are cases that you can be almost sure of improvement in games based on the >result of test suites. > >I do not claim that you can be almost sure on improvement based only on more >solutions but when more conditions happen you can be almost sure that you have >an improvment. > >For example if you solve almost every position faster and not solve only more >positions and the only change that you did is in the order of moves you can be >almost sure of an improvement. > >Uri No. :) Seriously, it's not enough. Good move ordering in tactical positions is different than good move ordering in quieter positions. Vas >> >>> >>>I appreciated your interesting feedback. My comments tend toward the >>>sarcastic, often outlandish, and sometimes ridiculous when I hit a >>>brick wall -- and it often helps. Either I get stirred up enough to >>>try a different approach, or take time away. >>> >>>I've thought of getting the books A Whack on the Side of the Head >>>and A Kick in the Seat of the Pants to stir the creative juices again. >>>Not sure it would help for programming which seems to be one of the >>>strangest singular scientific/artistic artforms in the universe. >>> >>>My last program died its death 5+ years ago and I stepped away from >>>programming from then until this past June -- so I know what you mean >>>about taking a sabbatical. Obviously it helped. The latest program clobbers >>>me. One goal down. >>> >>>I am paralleling your experience of asymptotic progress at 3 months. >>>My progress was at least 10x faster due to advice from the programmers >>>on this forum. It would have taken at least 3 years to get this far >>>(if ever, I would have probably given up instead.) That's a testament >>>to this board. The *reason* my last program failed is due to not taking >>>this board more seriously. This time I did not make that error. >>> >>>Bob hinted that there is no substitute for hard work or other people's >>>code, I think in relation to parallelizing, but his comment can be expanded >>>to the whole subject of computer chess program improvement. For me, >>>the hard work is trying to integrate other people's ideas. >>> >>>Cheers, >>> >>>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.