Author: Ryan B.
Date: 01:26:28 12/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2005 at 07:28:22, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >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 In my experience tuning the monkeys and darts can be somewhat painful. :) Ryan
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.