Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:01:29 11/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 1999 at 17:30:56, leonid wrote:
>On November 11, 1999 at 13:10:57, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>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
>
>Ha, so you wrote the Tiger game! I have the impression that I have seen a lot of
>talking about the game here. Will go to find it and try it as the game. Would
>like to be where you stay already.
I wish you to do it in less time than me. I'm into computer chess since more
than 17 years now.
>I asked you if you finished your game not in the sense that you reached the end
>of programming but only if the all parts of the game is already there. My logic
>is still incomplet. I wrote only basic logic without adding there all the
>database for openings and the end.
It's already a lot. My own program had no opening book for 12 years.
> Would like to reach the best speed on my main
>engin before going to the final touches.
That's reasonnable.
> This is the reason why I asked you
>before about the positional logic speed. This part is still complet mystery for
>me. Did I already accomplished some decent speed and can how to the final
>database task, or I still must stay with this part of the game?
Databases come later. First work on the real engine: search+eval, until you have
something close to the best programs.
> Anyway, now I am
>not in rush. I do wait the 64 bits chip in order to rewrite everything for it.
>64 bits sound to me pretty exciting even when I think about it! Would like to
>see at what speed all the chess games will jump with its arrival. 64 magic
>number perfectly fit into 64 squares on our chess board.
It's satisfying for the mind, but still has to prove it is superior. I
personally don't think it is.
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.