Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 23:08:27 06/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 1999 at 18:19:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: <snip> Thanks for an interesting post Vincent > CONCLUSIONS > >Parallellism is the future. Yes, this does seem to be a valid conclusion. Only one (Shredder) of the top 5 programs (Shredder, Ferret, Fritz, CilkChess, Junior) was running on a single CPU. >Not a single program will in the future be able to play without EGTB >in search. This is perhaps overstating the issue slightly, but I agree that programs playing withoug EGTB certainly have a disadvantage. This disadvantage will only grow as more and more EGTBs are conquered and compressed. I don't think LambChop suffered from not having EGTB, but if I compete next time I think I'll make sure I have them! >Winning the endgame for most programs is gonna get very tough. >Near to no program plays very well in the middlegame. It's about the plan. Something of an exaggeration of course... >When a program has the right plan and a way better position, then >you can about resign. >Bad tested programs are dinosaurs. They get massacred, Yes! I think that quality testing is one of the most important parts of developing a chess program. This testing must involve a large number of carefully analysed games (either by autoplayer, winboard/xboard, fritz interface, millenium interface or on the chess servers). I personally prefer the test servers because the humans give you more intereting games and are good at finding a program's weaknesses. >as a single big problem in a program will, because of the huge search depths, >immediately backtrack to the root and get at your board. Yes, deep searchers can dig their own graves sometimes :-) >Programs without a lot of knowledge don't know how to progress, or simply allow >or force opponents to place their pieces better. > >Quality is more important than quantity. I guess Lambchop clearly proved that. I'm not sure I proved that, but I feel my approach has been vindicated somewhat. LambChop was being outsearched by every opponent except Eugene. Sometimes it was being outsearched by 2, 3 or even more ply in the middlegame! This hurt in some games, but in others it didn't seem to matter. It will be interesting to see the tournament report by Don Beal, as he was collecting detailed information about every program. > > FUTURE WORK > For the future I plan to continue in pretty much the same way with an emphasis on gradually improving the evaluation function, and making the search more effective. I'd also like to try out some pruning ideas, but these are pretty vague right now. >Since last Tuesday 22th i'm slowly working on DIEP now. >I'm right now working at the search. Experimenting a lot >with forward pruning versus brute force search. >I simply kicked out all forward pruning. Only nullmove and alfabeta is what i >use. Experimenting with last ply pruning now though a little. >It scores shit at testsets. Positionally its however just as fast as >the very selective version i used in paderborn. > >After some toying the next few weeks with this i will work after that >at my endgame evaluation and fix the knight versus bishop parameters. > >For the next months and further my graphical windows >version must be made ready for commercial usage. Plan to release again >after this summer. > >After that i plan to learn diep how to play the kings indian defence with >black. I already started that project a year ago, but some defences seem >quite hard for programs to understand... > >Greetings, >Vincent
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.