Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 10:37:26 12/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2001 at 13:30:11, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On December 20, 2001 at 12:59:13, Scott Gasch wrote: > >Crafty is an exception it could easily be sold and converted to commercial, just >take a look at this match: This is comparing one of the very best commercial program available, but there are some commercial programs which are Weaker than the latest version of Crafty. >http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?202622 > > >>Commercial chess engines are, I think, much more heavily tested than typical >>amateur engines. That contributes to their strength. The stronger amateur >>engines like crafty and ferret are, because of the calibre of the authors, very >>rigorously debugged. This is one of the reasons they compete on the same level >>as the pros. >> >>Commercial engines are not using any "unknown" board representations or search >>techniques. Perhaps some are using forward pruning techniques that are not >>published anywhere. The degree to which this affects their playing strength is >>debatable. I'd be surprised if there was another technique like nullmove out >>there but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong... >> >>I also think commercial engines tend to focus their evals on important >>positional features better than most amateurs. This is one result of the >>superior formal testing these engines enjoy. I, for one, _know_ my eval is >>lacking in a lot of areas. It's hard to write a good eval. It's even harder to >>write a good eval that is still fast. >> >>Note, I'm probably not the best one to answer this question because I don't pay >>very much attention to the pro engines. I've thought about buying one or two to >>test my engine with and try to get ideas from in the past, but so far I haven't >>done it. The only experience with pros I have is watching my engine fight for >>its life against them on ICC. >> >>Scott >> >> >>On December 20, 2001 at 12:28:45, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>I held a discussion recently in IRC with one of the founders of the website >>>www.gamedev.net. We talked about several topics, but I recall him saying that >>>the techniques used in commercial software will always be ahead of what is >>>common knowledge and freely available to the general amateur programmer. >>> >>>Gamedev.net is mostly concerned with video games, and mostly 3D video games. In >>>the 3D video game market, this is probably true. Is the same true in the chess >>>programming market? I know that there are quite a few amateur programs that are >>>capable of giving today's top commercial programs a good game. Crafty is always >>>near the top of the pack in tournaments it competes in, and Ferret won the last >>>CCT ahead of Fritz if I recall correctly. >>> >>>My question is twofold. 1) Are commercial programs significantly stronger than >>>amateur programs today, and 2) are the techniques used in commercial chess >>>programs vastly different from the techniques used in top amateur programs? In >>>other words, is there likely to be any alternative (better) board representation >>>or alternative to alpha-beta that a commercial chess program uses that the >>>general computer chess programming public isn't aware of? >>> >>>Russell
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.