Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:56:27 09/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2004 at 10:48:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > >"in some cases". But that isn't quite what is being discussed here. It is >always "N is better than M if N > M" and that isn't always true. IE you will do >better at WAC with Crafty, by setting the one-reply and recapture extensions >higher. But it will play worse as it will extend too much and drop a ply or >more in normal positions... Yes but I believe that you can probably learn from it and extend more single reply in the right part of the cases and not extend in another part of the cases so you can score better both in test suites and not have the problem of droping one ply or more in normal positions. I do not extend single reply the same in all cases. 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.