Author: leonid
Date: 15:59:50 11/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 1999 at 18:01:29, Christophe Theron wrote: >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. Real pleasure for me to hear this. But is your game a shareware or pofessional. If it is a shareware what is the address? Before tryed to find it through the Alta Vista but was incapable. And I have strong impression that I have seen the game under this name in the shareware list. > > > >> 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. Question is how I can compare? Those "extensions" lost me in the darkness and I see no way out. > > > >> 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 Even saving of chess board positions will go at double speed. Now we can do this (forgetting about messy MMX) only by saving 4 bytes at once. Leonid.
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.