Author: KarinsDad
Date: 16:26:23 09/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 1999 at 15:56:17, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On September 28, 1999 at 15:43:33, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On September 28, 1999 at 15:26:26, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>[snip] >>>...who thinks he can get it down >>>>to around 100. >>>>;-) >>> >>><grin> hahahahahaha >>> >>>This is someone who you showed Nievergelt's comments to, or are you referring to >>>Nievergelt himself? :-) >>Neither. It's a C.A.P. member. > >Cool. I hope they can do it! > >Dave Good luck to them. I've tried about 20 different algorithms and although I can get extremely good results in some cases, there is always a case that blows up. In fact, I am currently using two algorithms at the moment and I have a bit which indicates which algorithm. If I could somehow determine which algorithm from a subset of the data, I could drop this bit and get down to 160. But, so far, I have been unable to do that either. Now, this is not to say that a better algorithm does not exist. It just means that I have not been able to find it. And, based on how much I have worked on this, I would be GREATLY surprised if someone could get much below 160, let alone get to 100. I doubt any of the other people who have worked on this in the last 6 months on this forum have gotten below 164 bits (although I think that the ones who were working on it have either given up or are being very closed mouthed about it). I guess my statement to Dann's friend would be: Put up or shut up. ;) KarinsDad :)
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.