Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: How much radical a new way of thought has to be to be a paradigm?

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 05:57:54 11/09/00

Go up one level in this thread


On November 09, 2000 at 07:50:30, Joe Besogn wrote:

>On November 08, 2000 at 15:06:46, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On November 08, 2000 at 07:15:59, Joe Besogn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Bob's resistance over several years has made it a very tortuous process, the
>>>resistance held back computer chess development by 3-4 years imo, and his
>>>resistance increases the scale and importance of the revolutionary idea. That's
>>>something he will have to deal with for himself.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>That is one of the funniest pieces of baloney I have read in years.  I suppose
>>I have also delayed the cure of AIDS by several years, not to mention a cure
>>for cancer and the common cold.  Exactly how did _I_ hold anything back?
>>
>
>You are the consolidator and teacher of the old paradigm. imo, Crafty is the
>algorithmic encapsulation of the old paradigm. All new programmers go to your
>source.

You are wrong about it.

I know that there are new programmers who looked at tscp code and never looked
at crafty code because crafty's code is too big for them to understand.

There are also programmers who never looked at source code of chess programs and
created very weak chess programs that are even weaker than tscp.

It is possible that most of the top programmers look at crafty source code but
even if this is the case it does not prove that the source code of crafty is the
thing that prevent them to get better.

I do not believe that the source code of crafty prevented programmers to get
progress.

Uri



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.