Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:01:00 08/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2005 at 14:17:36, Uri Blass wrote: >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They are outdated simply and need to get improved, fixed and retuned to match 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 Obviously that is not possible. And it is easy to prove it is not possible. Because Vincent says it is not possible. Who can argue with that??? There are faster move generators around. Programs that generate moves "as needed" rather than in a complete "batch" are one example. Why even generate the moves that are never going to be searched? Belle/Deep Thought/deep blue/Hydra did it in hardware. DarkThought used to do it this way, I assume it still does, as well. The fastest move generator is the one that doesn't generate unnecessary crap.
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.