Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 02:27:45 12/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2001 at 22:17:17, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 20, 2001 at 17:28:56, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>I don't think that the categorization "commercial programs vs amateurs" with >>regard to algoritms makes too much sense. This is, because I think that the >>commercial engines differ a lot from each other. >> >>From observing the programs' analysis I conclude, that the differences between >>Shredder, Fritz, Tiger´, Genius, Hiarcs ... are really huge. Each commercial >>engine is very original; I expect that any of these uses some quite original >>technique. >> >>The important thing is that the authors succeeded in making their engines strong >>and thus they could go commercially. But I guess they have reached this goal >>going quite different ways. >> >>IMHO, the reasons for their success is twofold: >>1. they are spending a lot of time and efforts in systematical testing and >>tuning; >>2. the authors are quite talented, >> >>where (2) is IMO at least as important as (1). > > >That's right. > > Of course you do. You have to. But nobody knows for sure until some techniques and research and results are published. Maybe anybody with a lot of time and money to put into their engine could make a commercial strength engine. > > >>I suspect that the amateur engines on the other hand show more similarities with >>each other. This is because most of them are young and the authors profited from >>open source (mainly crafty) and open discussion in the fora. > > >I agree with this too. > Me too. /David
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.