Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 01:13:58 11/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 1999 at 00:02:02, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 23, 1999 at 22:53:11, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On November 23, 1999 at 11:59:46, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On November 23, 1999 at 03:54:48, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>>Posted by Christophe Theron on November 22, 1999 at 18:25:35: >>>>> >>>>>>>Was it better than Sargon II, or just equal? >>>>>> >>>>>>It was better because Sargon was outplayed by search depth in most >>>>>>cases. In that days Rebel was able to look 6 plies deep all very selective >>>>>>and much holes involved but very effective playing a program thinking >>>>>>just 4 plies deep. >>>>> >>>>>6 plies on a TRS-80 in the time Sargon took to compute 4? >>>>> >>>>>I have the old Sargon II for TRS-80 manual just in front of me. A green manual: >>>>>"Hayden computer program tapes, Sargon II: A computer chess program by Dan and >>>>>Kathe Spracklen". I have kept it as a souvenir (I also have the cassette, >>>>>but I don't dare to open the box). >>>>> >>>>>The manual says that it took 6 minutes (average) to compute to ply depth 4. >>>>> >>>>>You are saying that in 6 minutes you were able to compute to ply depth 6 on a >>>>>TRS-80??? >>>> >>>>6 plies indeed all very selective but a friend of mine had doubled the >>>>processor speed from 1.77 Mhz to 3.5 Mhz. On standard 1.77 Mhz Rebel on >>>>40/120 was only able to compute 4 plies and some moves on 6 plies. >>>> >>>>The first Rebel was a strange animal. I had to re-invent the wheel >>>>completely as I had no access to documentation, I wasn't even aware >>>>documentation existed. >>>> >>>>No alpha/beta, no windows, no Q-search, the program could only think >>>>in steps of 2 plies. Thus 2,4,6,8 etc. >>> >>> >>>??? >>> >>>How did it work? Why the always even depth? >> >>Maybe he had a big odd/even effect. Funny that he didn't choose 1, 3, 5, 7 ... >>though. >> >>Dave > > >From the text I understood it was a search issue. But I don't see why, that's >why I ask... > >The reason I'm interested in this is that in the early days of computer chess >programming, people did not know what were the efficient ways to do it. So they >tried to invent their own algorithms. > >Some of them are maybe the future of chess programming. > >That was one of my objections to the Crafty or GnuChess project. Reinventing the >wheel IS fun. Today many chess programs are almost identical. Where is all that >creativity gone? > >God. I'm speaking like Chris W. now! > >I like to hear about exotic algorithms designed at the time when the computers >were very slow. > > > > 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.