Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:10:57 11/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 1999 at 07:03:24, leonid wrote:
>On November 11, 1999 at 02:11:28, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On November 10, 1999 at 22:28:49, leonid wrote:
>>
>>>On November 10, 1999 at 21:04:11, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On November 10, 1999 at 17:51:07, leonid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On November 10, 1999 at 13:31:45, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On November 10, 1999 at 07:15:37, leonid wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You can do something faster in assembly, but it takes such a long time to
>>>>>>>>develop it that in the end you lose your advantage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Because chess programming is about being creative, and assembly lengthens the
>>>>>>>>time between the idea and the implementation. That's the key.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Christophe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In reality, it is not writing the code that is the most time consuming in
>>>>>>>programming (at least in mine) but verification of each version of logic.
>>>>>>>Verification for speed. Writing the code take hardly 5 or 10% from the total
>>>>>>>time for creating the game. This is why language must have so little impact on
>>>>>>>the time of writing the chess game.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If the last change in my logic took some 5 hours for writing it, after 4 days of
>>>>>>>verification of positions I still don't know how much advantage I can obtain
>>>>>>>from the last change. I imagine that the same is true for everybody. This is why
>>>>>>>I would like to hear from you, or somebody else, how much really the time goes
>>>>>>>in writing the game compared with everything else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Leonid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>between one and two hours a day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyway that's not the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here is how I look at it: 100% of the time I spend in my sources is spend
>>>>>>reading C, not assembly, and for me that makes a big difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When I'm not in my sources, I'm not working on Tiger. When my program is running
>>>>>>automatic tests I work on something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christophe
>>>>>
>>>>>Can hardly imagine how you do your test. For me the test for speed is the
>>>>>verification of time that two logics ask for solving the same position. I must
>>>>>verify big number of positions in order to be certain that response is not
>>>>>aberration. And deposition of big number of different positions, taken very
>>>>>often from different sources, take time. To give you one idea about aberration.
>>>>>The last time I verified the new logic on the first 20 position, just asking the
>>>>>game to play on its own. The speed improvement was 160%. After this I took the
>>>>>positions from the Chess Life and tryed the same there on around next 18.
>>>>>Advantage was hardly 10%. Where I am? I still don't know. Tomorrow will continue
>>>>>my verification.
>>>>>
>>>>>Leonid.
>>>>
>>>>Being able to check if a change is an improvement or not is indeed the key to
>>>>really improve a program.
>>>>
>>>>It is very important to invest time to find a good testing methodology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>Almost impossible. Each time you have some new thing to try. The only way around
>>>the problem is to give all the try to somebody else. But this is impossible when
>>>you work on your own. Maybe your situation is different and this is how you are
>>>spending so much time with your code.
>>>
>>>Ho, maybe you could help me in solving my old mystery. Can you describe, in your
>>>way, at what speed now games search the position? For mate containing position I
>>>was able to find exact speed, but never found the way to know the speed for
>>>positional search. It make me wonder how far mine is from the good one.
>>>
>>>At what stage is your project?
>>>Leonid.
>>
>>I don't understand your question.
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>Before I asked two questions. The first one I found already it is really
>insolvable - speed of positional thinking of the game. The second was about your
>game, if it is completely finished? Don't be surprise on my question, not
>everybody finished its game.
>
>Leonid.
You mean, do I think that I have written algorithm that cannot be improved?
I think I'm very far from something like that. For me, Chess Tiger is a work in
progress, and I have an incredibly long list of things to do/try.
I'm still surprised it gets good results. Well... I'm getting used to it, but
sometimes I wonder how it managed.
I think it will NEVER be finished.
Christophe
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.