Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:05:38 11/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 2000 at 08:57:54, Uri Blass wrote: >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 is an insane argument. If you believe the argument from Chris, then either one of the two following statements must be true: (1) every breakthrough in science has been made by someone who started from scratch, all by himself, without reading any literature on the subject. (2) every breakthrough in science has been made by via serendipity. I happen to not believe _either_. Breakthroughs are generally made by someone expert in the field, who knows what others have tried and succeeded with, and who knows what others have tried and failed with. To suggest or imply that it is _bad_ to read the "crafty journal" in main.c to see what was added, what was removed, what was added again later, what worked, what failed, what was break- even, and claim that that holds back progress is pretty funny. And it goes directly to the credibility (or lack thereof) of anyone that would make such a totally outrageous statement. I should be able to write the worst chess program in the world, and publish the source, without holding back progress in any way. If nothing else, it would show all the things to _not_ do. I don't think crafty is such a program, by any stretch.
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.