Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 04:28:22 12/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2005 at 21:30:37, Walter Faxon wrote: >On December 16, 2005 at 03:42:44, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On December 15, 2005 at 16:15:06, Andrew Wagner 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? >>> >>>A very good question. If I were able to ask Vasik one question, which I doubt he >>>would have time to answer at the moment, it would be whether he did anything >>>radically different (different heuristic(s), algorithms, etc.), or if he just >>>did what everyone else is doing, better than they did it. >> >>Andy, >> >>I will just end up teasing you by answering this. :) >> >>As far as I know, Rybka has a very original search and evaluation framework. A >>lot of things that have been dismissed by "computer chess practice" can in fact >>work. >> >>In addition, there is vast room for further improvement. If I could get a team >>of let's say four smart people to work for four years full time (and this of >>course won't happen), the engine could be improved by probably 500 rating >>points. >> >>Vas > > >PB* ? >CNS ? >Monkeys and darts ? > >-W:)ter Tried monkeys and darts but it seemed to give a small performance loss. Need more data though .. :) Vas
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.