Author: Peter Kasinski
Date: 14:33:04 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 17:15:12, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 11, 2001 at 17:01:45, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>On January 11, 2001 at 16:50:36, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On January 11, 2001 at 16:42:21, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>I suggest null move and futility pruning because they are easy to implement and >>>>well documented, and will definitely make the program much stronger at a low >>>>cost. >>>> >>>>I do not suggest that by using these two techniques you will create a top >>>>program. >>>> >>>>I guess that you already know that the most successful techniques are not >>>>publicly documented. That's the fun of chess programming: do it yourself. >>> >>>No, that's the tragedy of chess programs. Because money can be made, >>>information is hidden instead of shared. >> >>I don't think that it's a tragedy. If all these tricks were published, we would >>probably not have this variety of chess programs; instead of "individuals" we >>would probably have a group of rather similar programs. Couldn't this be a bet >>boaring, Dann (even if each of these would play a bit stronger than today's >>toppers thanks to wisdom sharing) ? > >Bad science. We benefit because we hide what we learn? I don't believe one >sub-atomic particle of that. But why insist on science? Isn't it equally valid to call it all a competition (which, after all, it is) and things falls into place nicely. Better ideas win and influence progress. just a different angle I guess, cheers PK. > >Whoever says this is shouting a big lie. If we should shout it loud enough and >long enough people will believe it. But that won't make it true. > >Mankind benefits from the sharing of truth. Whether this truth is mathematical >or philosophical or metaphysical or whatever. Hiding the truth is *ALWAYS* so >that we can benefit _ourselves_ rather than others. Isn't this completely >obvious? We can justify it any way that we like. > >Now, I also understand economic reality. If you share what you know in computer >chess, other people will try it. If you have a competitive edge and you >describe how you got that edge, you just lost your edge. That is too bad, and >that is what drives the secrecy. The sort of ideal world I envision is entirely >impractical, and I am aware of that. It does not stop me from lamenting, >however.
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.