Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 04:37:13 12/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2005 at 04:26:28, Ryan B. wrote: >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 It's important to use the right hardware. 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.