Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:17:36 08/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2005 at 07:49:10, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 04, 2005 at 07:15:02, Engin Üstün wrote: > >>everybody understanding only like this: >> >>if i a am programming a simple engine and run it on a super hardware with 65535 >>cores, this will be very strong play. > >Just prove you can get it to work at 8 cores first. > >>what is about the intelligence of the program? i mean the knowledge of the >>program ? > >Well the competition in that respect has been closed already, >as diep has more chessevaluation knowledge than any other program. > >That i'm a titled FIDE master didn't hurt of course when programming that >knowledge. This is of course a gap you can never bridge. > >Too lazy even to make a parallel engine, let alone chessknowledge. > >Now people like to see how it plays all that chessknowledge, so do i. > >Right now i'm busy fixing chesspatterns i entered between 1994 and 1998. > >They are outdated simply and need to get improved, fixed and retuned to match >the bugfree play that 2005 engines show. > >It's a pretty big job to improve all that old evaluation code (just kicking it >out hurts even more by the way, as knowledge DOES work). > >>we human are not fast on thinking of position, but we are using our knowledge of >>chess, and thinking selektive moves only very deep. >>the goal is to go programming a better chess engine, and maybe more selektive >>less nodes and with much chess knowledge. > >Diep searches at 85k nps at a k7 2.1ghz and it's move generator is worlds >fastest move generator, so that nps is not because of bad programming at all. No proof for it. It is possible that another programmer could use a different data structure to calculate your evaluation faster. 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.