Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:17:50 09/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2004 at 12:56:27, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Neither do I. The deeper into the tree, the less they get extended.
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.