Author: Peter Skinner
Date: 03:00:46 11/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2005 at 04:48:37, Ryan B. wrote: >Yes a bitbase standard will very soon be public. Bitbases are Superior to EGTB >because they probe faster and work in qsearch. The .dll file to use Danial's >bitbases is already done and circulating. It will just take some time for the 5 >piece bitbases to be generated. I am open to the possibility that the use of >both bitbases and EGTB together could be usefull but this would require a large >amount of space for the 6 piece TB's for a small gain. Then here lies the a problem. If the access code to use the new bitbases is in the form of a dll, how do linux program authors use it? Would it not be better to release the code as a c or cpp module? Or in some form that is cross platform? More and more engines and programs are being cross ported, why limit one's choices to a single operating system? Purely just thinking off the top of my head... I don't want to argue which operating system is better, but rather the productive choices given to program authors. >Scale down towards draw per pawn ram when pawns >= 14 or no open files. This >will motivate computer to open the game up. Other scale down factors are >obviously need as well. I have thought of this as well. Would this not require a vast amount of knowledge outside the opening book of opening theory and when it is fine to have an open position, or whether it is better to keep it closed? I am assuming as well you would have to make this code identify whether it was playing another program or a human, and what positions for either side would be open/closed. If such knowledge is needed, it would noticibly slow down the engine and may slow it to the point of being counter-productive. No? Taking the example of the latest Fritz, if you believe the advertsing/author comments that he tuned the program to play regardless of the type of opponent, and the strength improvement over the previous version, would you not tune your program to play the same way? Let's try Crafty for an example. If you tell Crafty that it is playing a computer (or an interface tells Crafty), it plays less random and choses it's book moves with less width. If you also use it's bookc.bin and tell it is playing a computer, things become even more restrictive. I have always felt that _not_ telling Crafty it is playing a computer (and modifying winboard not to tell it in ICS mode), it plays a wider selection of openings, and frankly plays better. (In my opinion) If we could do that to all engines, would all show the same improvement like Fritz? Or would some by severely hurt by it? Deciding whether to have an open file or position against x or y opponent is the exact slippery slope that I am referring about. Peter
This page took 0.01 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.