Author: Normand M. Blais
Date: 15:03:58 12/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2005 at 16:21:15, Dann Corbit wrote: >On December 15, 2005 at 16:07:10, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>Recently two programs came upon the scene and astonished many >>with their great results. >> >>Why do you think they do better, specifically? > >Everything. > >They evaluate better. >They search better. > >Interestingly, I think that Rybka is an affirmation of Chris W. and Vincent D.'s >approach (pack as much knowledge as possible into the evaluation). I say that >because it solves problems in much earlier plies than other programs do. I >suppose that this could also be partly due to a better search. > >Because Rybka does stupendously better in a 64 bit compile, I surmise that Rybka >is a bitboard program. This is surprising because most of the top commercial >programs and Fruit are not bitboard programs. > >Fruit is open source. So we can figure out what Fabien does that is more clever >than our attempts (eventually). > >I think Rybka will tip the see-saw again. > >When Christophe Theron got great success with search speed, many people decided >that eval was not that important and concentrated on search. Also, many highly >successful chess programs were not bitboard based, and so people started writing >0x88 and other matrix based chess programs. > >Now, they will probably try to pack in more chess knowledge and go bitboard. > >Of course, it's not going to help as much as most will hope. The real thing >that makes the programs better is superior thinking and implementations of the >ideas of the authors. The nuts and bolts of how to get there are not all that >important (IMO-YMMV). It helps to be an IM ... and a programmer. Regards, NMB
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.