Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 14:26:49 07/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 1999 at 17:13:37, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 20, 1999 at 14:12:03, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>On July 20, 1999 at 12:12:14, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>I think it would be interesting to benchmark chess algorithms: >>>0. Move generators -- all types >>>1. Alpha-Beta vs MTD(f) >>>2. Bitboards vs 0x88 >>>3. etc. >>> >>>Prepare a large crosstable and do a large number of runs with as many >>>implementations as possible and under as many different conditions as possible. >>> >>>Change the search time from very short searches (10 sec or less) up to half an >>>hour to find the bit O(f(n)) properties of the algorithms. >>> >>>A systematic study might eliminate a lot of guesswork or even tell us *where* >>>certain algorithms work better than others. For instance, we might use one >>>algorithm at a certain time control and a different algorithm at a longer time >>>control and yet another at correspondence chess time controls. >> >> >>This is certainly an interesting proposition. I think (having read some of >>the discussion below) that the best way to compare two approaches is in one >>program. That minimizes the number of variables. > >Please measure things in a commercial program, >at a bad program any change works of course. None of the commercials I know of provide source code, so this might be tough to arrange. Is your opinion that Crafty would be adequate? Dave
This page took 0.01 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.